Barely Significant
← all phrases

marginal significance

5,070 sentences · 5,070 papers · 6,631 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.07

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

marginal significancep = .0871.7× alphagold
Pairwise comparisons revealed that in the experimental condition, reports were more similar to the AEMT response than the control writing response selectively in wake ( t (311) = 2.68, p = .008, d = 0.85) and N1 ( t (317) = 3.06, p = .002, d = 1.14), with marginal significance in N2 ( t (302) = 1.72, p = .087, d = 0.42; Figure 3 , B ).
marginal significanceP = 0.0871.7× alphagold
Compared with individuals without any sarcopenia components, those having low grip strength and/or slow gait speed without low ALMI were associated with increased risks of incident disability, and mortality or incident disability with marginal significance [HRs (95% CI): 1.4 (1.0–2.0), P = 0.087, and 1.4 (1.0–1.9), P = 0.057, respectively], but not all‐cause mortality [1.3 (0.8–2.2), P = 0.346].
marginal significanceP =0.0881.8× alphagold
The tg-EC-DHFR mice were also protected from developing elevated RVSP (Figure 4 B; P =0.050 for the DAHP model and P =0.088 for the hypoxia model with marginal significance), as well as increased RV/(LV+S) ratio (Figure 4 C; P =0.047 for the DAHP model and P =0.006 for the hypoxia model), in response to either DAHP administration or hypoxia exposure.
marginal significancep = 0.08801.8× alphagold
Specifically, total leaf area in arugula and stem length in romaine lettuce showed significant three-way interactions, and stem length of arugula was also interactively regulated by these environmental factors with marginal significance ( p = 0.0880) ( Figure 3 ).
marginal significancep =0.0881.8× alphagold
Correlation of cancer field methylation between different genes and to age Based on the data from methylation analyses using continuous percentage variables in ADJ, ER , and WIF1 methylation levels increased with age (R=0.370 and 0.558, p =0.034 and 0.001, respectively), whereas other markers had little correlation to age, except two markers with marginal significance ( MAL and SLC16A12 , R=0.302 and 0.322, p =0.088 and 0.068, respectively).