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 = 0.091.8× alphagold
There was no evidence of a treatment × day of gestation effect for 12th rib back fat ( P = 0.85), rump fat ( P = 0.48), total plasma protein concentrations ( P = 0.85), or plasma 3-methylhistidine ( P = 0.84); however, there was a marginally significant treatment × day of gestation effect for plasma non-esterified fatty acid concentration ( P = 0.09).
marginally significantp = 0.091.8× alphagold
Furthermore, there were marginally significant differences in vital exhaustion at pretest ( t (15.72) = −1.77, p = 0.09, d = 0.54) with lower scores for remainders ( M = 4.29, SD = 3.59) versus the dropouts ( M = 6.67, SD = 5.04), but not significant differences in symptoms of depression ( t < 1.00).
marginally significantp = 0.0901.8× alphagold
A marginally significant exposure × side interaction (F 1,16 = 3.249, p = 0.090, η 2 p = 0.169) was found but post hoc analysis did not indicate that exposure would have differently affected the left or the right side ( p > 0.35 in all comparisons, the greater MD = −1.009).
marginally significantP = 0.091.8× alphagold
However, after adding control variables into the regression model, the effect of culturally aligned AI use became nonsignificant ( b = 0.19, SE = 0.14, P = 0.19), whereas the effect of culturally misaligned AI use became marginally significant ( b = −0.22, SE = 0.13, P = 0.09; see model 2 in Table 4 ), suggesting that at least one of the control variables was suppressing the effect of culturally misaligned AI use.
marginally significantP = 0.091.8× alphagold
Berges and colleagues examined functional recovery in 990 Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics and found marginally significant differences at admission ( P = 0.09), no differences at discharge ( P = 0.15), and significant differences at 3-month follow-up ( P = 0.01) with Whites (102.3) having higher FIM scores than Blacks (101.9) and Hispanics (92.0) [ 31 ].
marginally significantp = .091.8× alphagold
Similar to Gershberg and Shimamura ( 1995 ), this analysis revealed a marginally significant effect of Condition [ F (3,28) = 2.39, p = .09] with participants performing significantly better on the Full-cues ( M = .64, SD = .18) than the No-cues ( M = .58, SD = .17) condition ( t = 2.59, df = 31, p < .05), whilst performance on the Encoding-cues ( M = .60, SD = .18) and Retrieval-cues ( M = .60, SD = .19) conditions fell in between.