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 = .0831.7× alphagold
After taking the test, by True Overplacement, all but the Japanese significantly decrease their estimates (-6.78%, p = .022; -8.07%, p = .002; -4.28%, p = .032; and 1.98%, p = .435, respectively), but all remain overplaced, significantly so for the Hong Kong Chinese (5.80%, p = .050) and Japanese (6.93%, p = .045) and marginally significant for the European Canadians (6.88%, p = .083).
marginally significantp = .0831.7× alphagold
Similarly for the best-fitting slope, although the main effect of sensory detail was marginally significant ( F (2,26) = 2.74, MS = 6051, η p 2 = .174, p = .083), there was a significant quadratic trend ( F (1,13) = 5.70, MS = 11940, η p 2 = .305, p < .05) suggesting that the slope was most negative for speech with an intermediate amount of sensory detail.
Top-down influences of written text on perceived clarity of degraded speech.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform · 2014 · PMC3906796
marginally significantp = 0.0831.7× alphagold
Results Behavioral results Cardiovascular fitness For cardiovascular fitness, we found a significant SESSION by GROUP interaction [ F (4, 41) = 2.79, p = 0.031, η 2 = 0.12], a marginally significant effect for GROUP [ F (2, 41) = 0.19, p = 0.083, η 2 = 0.01], but no significant main effect for SESSION [ F (2, 41) = 1.54, p = 0.220].
marginally significantp = 0.0831.7× alphagold
recurrent) showed a marginally significant association (HR = 0.480; 95% CI: 0.209–1.101; p = 0.083; R 2 = 100%), suggesting that the direction and magnitude of HIPEC’s effect on progression-related outcomes may differ between primary and recurrent settings.
marginally significantp = 0.0831.7× alphagold
Supporting these findings, model testing with LTT generated a statistically significant better fit of the birth–death model (speciation + extinction) over the speciation-only Yule model (likelihood ratio test chi 2 p value 0.030), and the Pybus-Harvey gamma statistic was positive (1.7347), indicating that the speciation rate was initially low and subsequently increased (though this statistic was marginally significant at p = 0.083).
marginally significantp = 0.0831.7× alphagold
Emotional Well-being Subjective Well-being MDBF Mood The repeated-measure analysis yielded a significant main effect of “time,” F (1,34) = 12.29, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.266 , a marginally significant effect of the factor “group,” F (2,34) = 2.67, p = 0.083, η p 2 = 0.136 and a significant interaction between both factors, F (2,34) = 4.003, p = 0.027, η p 2 = 0.191 .
marginally significantp = 0.0831.7× alphagold
Additionally, it was determined that the mediation effect of the GC response on the Ac-H3 expression was marginally significant ( p = 0.083) and accounted for approximately 62% of the total effect relative to its indirect effect, suggesting that the GC response may influence the Ac-H3 expression indirectly through altering the expression of NF-κB.