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 = .071.4× alphagold
Here we found a marginally significant difference ( F (1, 22) = 3.61, p = .07, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\hat{\eta}}_{<p>}^2 $$\end{document} η ^ < p > 2 = 0.14), suggesting that (contrary to our prior suggestion) when recognition failures occurred, observers in the active condition spent longer looking at the targets than observers in the passive condition (see Fig. 6 ).
marginally significantp =.071.4× alphagold
MVV Over all subjects, correlations revealed significant associations between MVV and the reported likelihood of having fallen asleep (r =.37, p < .001), MVV, and ESS (r = −.14, p =.05), and marginally significant associations between MVV and KSS pre (r = −.13, p =.07).
marginally significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Comparison between groups and survival analysis Comparison of clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients showed similar median age, gender, site and onset of metastases and median tumor size but a marginally significant difference in the median size of metastases was found (< 3 cm: 45.9 vs 53.7%; > 3 cm: 54.1 vs 46.3%; p = 0.07) (Table 1 ).
marginally significantp = .071.4× alphagold
Adding eosinophil percentage to the model reduced the magnitude of the interaction coefficient, and the interaction term became marginally significant, b = -0.010, SE = 0.005, 95% CI [-0.020, 0.001], p = .07; however, the coefficient for eosinophil percentage itself was nearly zero, b = -0.0001, p = .98.