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 = 0.0701.4× alphagold
When those with CAT C-262T C/C were defined as reference, those with CAT C-262T C/T demonstrated the OR for CKD of 0.67 (95% CI 0.43–1.06) with the marginally significant trend for decreased odds ratio with increasing numbers of T allele ( p = 0.070).
marginally significantP = 0.071.4× alphagold
Results Migration distance and recruitment of new neurons When exploring links between migration distance and new neuronal recruitment in turtle doves we found marginally significant increase in recruitment into the NCL for birds flying longer distances (P = 0.07; ρ = 0.53; N = 12; Fig. 1 ), but not in the HC (P = 0.96; ρ = −0.01; N = 11).
marginally significantp = 0.0701.4× alphagold
Follow-up analyses revealed that while there were no significant interactions between group and trial quadrant for phases IS and NL (all ps ≥ 0.160), there was a marginally significant interaction for the FT data, F (1,62) = 3.399, p = 0.070, partial η 2 = 0.052.
marginally significantp = .0701.4× alphagold
Second, the simple main effect of facial expression was significant under the congruent condition, F (1, 17) = 6.89, MSE = 52.55, p = .018, η 2 p = .29, and marginally significant under the direct gaze condition, F (1, 17) = 3.74, MSE = 59.41, p = .070, η 2 p = .18.
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
While we failed to find a significant interaction effect [ F (3,102) = 2.28, p = 0.08, η 2 = 0.01], we did find a marginally significant effect of control type [ F (1,34) = 3.44, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.05] (see Figure 3 for a plot of the data associated with this analysis, as well as Table 2 for each cell of the repeated measures ANOVA).
A nap consolidates generalized perceptual learning.
Front Sleep · 2023 · PMC12713829
marginally significantp = .071.4× alphagold
Independent-samples t tests showed that while there was no significant productivity difference in recall Session 1 for individuals in the control ( M = 27.03, SD = 12.12) and collective ( M = 24.94, SD = 9.40) conditions, t (70) = .81, p = .42, the difference between these two sets of participants in recall Session 2 was marginally significant, t (70) = 1.81, p = .07, where participants in the control condition recalled more items ( M = 26.08, SD = 13.01) than those in the collective condition ( M = 21.53, SD = 7.67; see Figure 2 ).
marginally significantp < .071.4× alphagold
For three out of five assessments, namely those tapping invented spelling, phonological awareness skills, and word recognition, the difference between treatment and control group reached significance; however, for decoding the effect was marginally significant ( p < .07) and for letter knowledge non-significant.