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 = 0.0871.7× alphagold
The results revealed a significant main effect of conditions, F (2,78) = 3.146, p = 0.049, η p 2 = 0.075, and a marginally significant interaction effect between groups and conditions, F (2,78) = 3.073, p = 0.087, η p 2 = 0.073, suggesting that the degree of conformity varied across two different groups (see Fig. 2A ).
marginally significantp = 0.0871.7× alphagold
A 6‐month RCT forming part of the Mazira Project ( n = 660 children aged 6–9 months) found that providing one egg daily (resulting in consumption of approximately half an egg per day) was associated with a marginally significant increase in total energy intake of ~30 kcal/day compared to controls ( p = 0.087–0.128), with minimal displacement of other complementary foods indicating that the intervention supplemented the children's usual diet rather than replacing nutrient‐dense foods (Lutter et al. 2021 ).
marginally significantP = 0.0871.7× alphagold
As seen in Figure 5 , teams significantly out-performed individuals on the memory task, t (34.37) = 4.46, P <0.001, brainstorming creative uses of a brick, t (27.36) = 9.41, P <0.001, unscrambling words, t (33.79) = 7.53, P <0.001, and sudoku, t (24.08) = 7.06, P <0.001, with a marginally significant trend for the winter survival task, t (30.84) = 1.77, P = 0.087.
Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance.
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci · 2021 · PMC7812618
marginally significantP = 0.0871.7× alphagold
In addition, the H19 level showed a marginally significant association with all-cause mortality (HR 2.263, 95% CI: 0.889–5.760, P = 0.087), although it appeared to have no significant improvement for the CHA 2 DS 2 –VASc model for predicting all-cause mortality.
marginally significantp = .0871.7× alphagold
Furthermore, the red versus blue contrast was significant and in the predicted direction in the dating interview context: t (29) = 1.75, p = .046 (one-tailed), d = .65, and was marginally significant and in the predicted direction in the intelligence interview context: t (31) = 1.40, p = .087 (one-tailed), d = .50.
marginally significantp = 0.0871.7× alphagold
For exhaustion, the correlation was marginally significant ( r = −0.104, p = 0.087), but a separate analysis revealed a difference––the “behavior at work” aspect demonstrated a clear negative correlation with exhaustion ( r = −0.118, p = 0.044), but “personal lifestyle” did not ( r = −0.014, n.s.).
marginally significantP =0.0871.7× alphagold
Disentangling this marginally significant effect [reward×task-switching×medication×DAT1: F (1,21)=3.23; P =0.087] showed that 9R-carrying patients OFF medication tended to show a greater switch cost on high than low reward trials compared with these patients ON their medication [reward×task-switching×medication in 9R carriers: F (1,11)=4.40; P =0.06; Fig. 2 c].
marginally significantp = .0871.7× alphagold
When each hemisphere within each ROI was individually analyzed regarding the response to the contralateral and ipsilateral visual field, paired t‐tests showed that the left hemisphere OFA showed a significant difference ( t 6 = 3.98, p = .007) and the right hemisphere OFA was marginally significant ( t 5 = 2.12, p = .087), but neither hemisphere in FFA showed a consistent difference (all t ‐values < 1.8, all p ‐values > .10).