Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally non-significant”

1,494 sentences · 1,494 papers · 1,908 search hits before verification

In the literature

marginally non-significantp values ≤0.102.0× alpha
p values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant, while marginally non-significant values ( p values ≤0.10) are also indicated. 3 Results 3.1 Maternal behavior time scans 3.1.1 Nursing Although PFOA dams did not differ in the average amount of time spent nursing ( t = 0.95, p = 0.35; Figure 2A ) the posture of nursing differed.
42 The first trial included playground observation at the end of the first intervention year, which was suggestive of lower levels in bullying victimisation, though these differences were marginally non-significant (M=0.9, SD=0.82 vs M=1.01, SD=0.83; F (72.4)=3.74, p<0.10). 37 Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom examined relational and physical victimisation after 1 year of intervention implementation and found no significant effect of the intervention (weighted d =−0.01, SE=0.06). 29 30 Finally, Youth Matters examined bullying victimisation through continuous and dichotomous measures.
An analogous causal estimate was derived regardless of which IV was removed; however, there were five IVs (FEV 1 model = two outlier single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) , FVC model = four outlier SNPs [two outlier SNPs shared]) for which the estimate was marginally non-significant after exclusion (maximum p=0.11, IVW with multiplicative random effects).
marginally non-significantp =0.122.4× alpha
Linear trends (estimating the average slopes of curves in Figure 1 ) shifted from negative after embryogenesis at 18°C to positive after embryogenesis at 22°C ( Figure 2A ), and differed significantly between 18°C and both of the other temperatures (the contrast between 20 and 22°C was marginally non-significant at p =0.12; Figure 2D ).
marginally non-significantp = 0.122.4× alpha
For those taxonomic groups found consistently within both the infauna and epifauna, namely the amphipods and isopods (n = 22 samples), the difference in terms of δ 13 C, when accounting for site-specific variability as a random intercept in the LMM model, was marginally non-significant (infauna respective to epifauna: C = −1.7 ± 1.0 SE; t = −1.6; p = 0.12).
marginally non-significantp = 0.1232.5× alpha
Predictive Performance of δV1 and δL1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated superior predictive accuracy with δV1 (AUC = 0.745) (95% CI, 0.642–0.847) than with δL1 (AUC = 0.634) (95% CI, 0.512–0.757), though the difference was marginally non-significant ( p = 0.123) ( Figure 3 ).