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 < 0.0370.7× alphagold
There were marginally significant correlations between Repetitive Behavior Scale—Revised (RBS-R) scores and the number of nights recorded with Dreem or Empatica ( r (102) < −0.21, P < 0.037, not significant after Bonferroni’s correction), but not with Withings ( r (102) > −0.1, P = 0.3).
marginally significantp = 0.0370.7× alphagold
The interaction between group and subregion revealed significant or marginally significant clusters in the right thalamus ([15–33 4], voxel = 12, p = 0.037, svc), left PCC ([-15 -51 20], voxel = 19, p = 0.032, svc), right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG, [45 18 -8], voxel = 32, p = 0.052, svc), and left caudate ([-18 0 24], voxel = 9, p = 0.059, svc) (see Fig. 3 ).
marginally significantP = 0.0370.7× alphagold
Relative to the right radial access, a marginally significant increase in catheter numbers was observed in the left radial access in studies with diagnostic coronary procedure only (WMD: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.63; P = 0.037), with strong evidence of heterogeneity (P<0.0005).
marginally significantp =0.0370.7× alphagold
In the first model assessing association with all genotypes for all individuals, marginally significant associations were observed for ε2 homozygotes where executive function scored higher by ~0.5 standard deviations ( p =0.037, SE=0.23), and for ε3/ε4 heterozygotes where visuospatial ability scores were lower ( p =0.046, SE=0.14).
marginally significantp = 0.0380.8× alphagold
Regarding episode duration, variance heterogeneity was indicated by Levene’s test, and although ANOVA yielded a marginally significant result ( p = 0.038), post hoc Tamhane’s T2 tests did not reveal specific group differences.
marginally significantp = 0.0380.8× alphagold
While there was no treatment × category interaction [ F (4, 47) = 0.169, p = 0.954, η 2 = 0.004], indicating that OXT effects were similar across the five categories, there was a marginally significant treatment × country interaction [ F (3, 47) = 2.89, p = 0.038, η 2 = 0.058 – p < 0.025 considered significant following correction for multiple ANOVAs] due to OXT effects occurring mainly for Chinese stimuli ( p = 0.014).