Barely Significant
← all phrases

“marginally significant”

26,083 sentences · 26,083 papers · 36,483 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p>=0.1

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

In the literature

) 75-84 31 225 (33.6) 85-94 45 725 (49.2) Average calendar year at entry 1983 Distribution by duration of follow-up, years (%) 1-4 35 703 (38.4) 5-9 26 503 (28.5) 10 + 30 780 (33.1) pattern did not change substantially across age or calendar period at cohort entry (data not shown). Stomach cancer A marginally significant 40% excess risk of gastric cardia cancer was observed (SIR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9) in asthmatic patients, with no consistent change with follow-up duration (Table 3).
Finally, the fourth model, after adding to prior variables the perceived health control variables (health locus of control, general self-efficacy, and psychological reactance), showed that age was the only significant demographic variable remaining in the model that predicted a high level of adherence to treatment, while university degree was marginally significant.
Taking all cancers together, a marginally significant protective effect was found for DQB1*0501 ( 2P = 0.03) but no protective effect could be seen for DRB1*1301. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign Keywords: HPV, HLA, cervical cancer status released display-pdf yes is-olf no is-manuscript no is-preprint no is-journal-matter no is-scanned no is-retracted no Received 1999 Jul 26; Revised 1999 Oct 22; Accepted 1999 Oct 25; Issue date 2000 Apr.
In addition, all main effects were more pronounced in old participants: they had stronger performance decrements in cognitive dual tasks compared to single tasks [difference between dual tasks and single tasks: old: M = 0.33; SE = 0.05; young: M = 0.09; SE = 0.02; difference between age groups: t (19) = 4.01, p < 0.001, d = 1.75], for modality incompatible compared to modality compatible tasks [difference between modality incompatible and modality compatible tasks; old: M = 0.21; SE = 0.02; young: M = 0.05; SE = 0.02; difference between age groups: t (19) = 4.93, p < 0.001, d = 2.15] and marginally significant higher decrements during standing compared to sitting [difference between standing and sitting: old: M = 0.07; SE = 0.02; young: M = 0.03; SE = 0.02; difference between age groups: t (19) = 1.87, p = 0.077, d = 0.82].
There was no evidence, among parous women, that increasing parity was associ- ated with risk of mucinous tumours. Relative to a first birth before age 25, a first birth at a later age was associated with a significant (60%) reduced risk of serous borderline tumours, and a marginally significant (40%) decreased risk of endometrioid/clear cell tumours; increasing age at first birth was significantly associated with a decreased risk of these tumour types (Table 6).
As shown in figure 3 B , values of P 50(KCl + IHP) for the SIAI, SVAV, and SIVI genotypes fell well below the lower 95% confidence limit of the ancestral, high-affinity GVAI genotype, and an additional double-mutant genotype, GIAV, exhibited a marginally significant reduction in P 50(KCl + IHP) below this same threshold.