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

marginally significantP =0.0541.1× alphagold
pallidus for cyt b show a marginally significant difference between the mean number of haplotypes (2.50 and 1.90, respectively; U =490.5, P =0.054) and a strongly significant difference between mean number of polymorphic sites per locality (3.89 and 1.20, respectively; U =543.0, P =0.007).
marginally significantp value = 0.0541.1× alphagold
The results with both incident and prevalent cohorts of the Nun Study show that ApoE4 promotes the cognitive decline of a subject, in that an ApoE4 carrier is expected to have a relatively longer time of the transition from MCI back to intact cognition ( p value = 0.011); a higher risk of being in MCI, which is marginally significant ( p value = 0.054); and a shorter time of the transition from MCI to dementia ( p value = 0.032), compared to a non-carrier.
marginally significantp = 0.0541.1× alphagold
Results Egg size plasticity under climate change conditions Egg length for both sexes was significantly influenced by the environment ( p = 0.049), parents’ age ( p < 0.001), the interaction between the environment and parents’ age ( p = 0.004), and three-way interactions among environment, line, and parents’ age ( p = 0.024) and among environment, parents’ age, and sex (marginally significant, p = 0.054; Table 1 ).
marginally significantP = 0.0541.1× alphagold
Of the serious tumors, DNMT3a protein expression was significantly higher than that in benign tumor samples ( P = 0.001); DNMT3b was marginally significant down regulated in ovarian cancers compared to that of the benign tumors ( P = 0.054); DNMT1 expression has no statistical difference between ovarian cancers and benign tumor tissues ( P = 0.837).
marginally significantp = 0.0541.1× alphagold
The main effect of condition was marginally significant, [ F (2, 53) = 3.08, p = 0.054, η 2 p = 0.10], suggesting that the overall number of triplets generated varied across conditions ( M = 38.66, SD = 6.41 in the control condition, M = 35.72, SD = 8.23 in the foot tapping condition, and M = 42.22, SD = 9.15 in the articulatory suppression condition).
marginally significantp = 0.0541.1× alphagold
The statistical results revealed a significant main effect of time ( F (1.15, 48.43) = 60.40, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.59), no group effect ( F (1.42) = 1.22, p = 0.275, η p 2 = 0.03), and a marginally significant group × time interaction ( F (1.15, 48.43) = 3.71, p = 0.054, η p 2 = 0.08).
marginally significantp =0.0541.1× alphagold
N170 Amplitude The ANOVA for N170 peak amplitude ( Table 4 and Figure 5 ) also showed a significant main effect of emotion types [ F (1,44)=6.62, p =0.014, η 2 =0.13] and a marginally significant four-way interaction among emotion type, cue validity, electrode location, and age [ F (1,44)=3.93, p =0.054, η 2 =0.08].
marginally significantp = 0.0541.1× alphagold
The average Cobb angle was significantly lower in the HSS group than in the other groups on postoperative day 1 ( p = 0.022, one-way ANOVA); however, marginally significant differences were observed among the three groups in Scheffe’s post hoc test (HSS < IS, p = 0.054; HSS < LS, p = 0.058).
marginally significantp = 0.0541.1× alphagold
Additionally, there was a marginally significant interaction effect of Session*Category*Treatment (F (2157) = 3.050, p = 0.054; effect size: η p 2 = 0.035; Greenhouse–Geisser-corrected due to departure from sphericity); with local and historical treatments of ambiguous artworks showing higher scores during retest session (local M = 564.30, SD = 201.43; historical M = 522.26, SD = 179.37) than the baseline, and global and historical treatment of non-ambiguous artworks showing higher scores in the retest session (global M = 537.15, SD = 172.49; historical M = 541.87, SD = 184.97) than the baseline ( Table 1 , Figure 4 and Figure 5 ).