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 = 0.0581.2× alphagold
Dogs with mild and severe impairment had significantly higher NfL levels than the AC group, and a marginally significant increase was also observed between the YC and severe groups ( p = 0.058), suggesting a potential early elevation of serum NfL in the transition from normal aging to advanced cognitive decline ( Figure 5 C).
marginally significantp = 0.0581.2× alphagold
Although no differences in the MMSE scores were observed, differences appeared in the comprehensive cognitive domain screen, exhibiting better performance in the Symbol Digit Test ( p = 0.032), the Digit Span Test (total) ( p = 0.058, marginally significant), and Backward digit span ( p = 0.035) in PD caregiver compared to non-caregiver.
marginally significantp = 0.0581.2× alphagold
OA showed marginally significant lower use of rEV information [mean SD rEV r 2 values YA: 0.40 0.13, OA: 0.35 0.13, between group difference t (97) = 1.92, p = 0.058, d = 0.40], without alteration in the use of pWIN information [mean SD pWIN r 2 values YA: 0.03 0.04, OA: 0.04 0.04, between group difference t (96) = 1.27, p = 0.21, d = 0.27].
marginally significantp = .0581.2× alphagold
There was, however, a marginally significant main effect of Age Group for the subjective importance of observing the recommendations regarding hand-washing, F (2, 281) = 2.88, p = .058, η p 2 = .020, with the OA group perceiving the observation of these recommendations as significantly more important than the YA group ( p = .025) and the MA group ( p = .032).
marginally significantp = .0581.2× alphagold
Results Training phase In the training phase, the main effect of image type on go RTs was marginally significant ( p = .058); planned comparisons revealed marginally significant differences between the stop-associated images (428 ms) and the go-associated images (422 ms), t (30) = −1.99, p = .055, g av = 0.234, and between the stop-associated images and the control images (422 ms), t (30) = −1.92, p = .064, g av = 0.242.
Should I stop or should I go? The role of associations and expectancies.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform · 2016 · PMC4685931
marginally significantp = .0581.2× alphagold
Lastly, marital status was not significantly related to EE (F = 0.215, p = .807), but had a marginally significant effect on PA (F = 2.860, p = .058) and a significant effect on DP (F = 4.535, p = .011), suggesting that marital status may influence depersonalization ( Table 3 ).