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

Statistical power considerations Given the uncertainty regarding the diagnostic interaction between switch probability, switch cost and RCI in the error analyses in Experiment 1 (it was marginally significant in the ANOVA, but only “anectodal” in the Bayesian test), we sought to augment the statistical power by increasing the number of participants.
Subsequent to this analysis, genes that manifest independent associations are considered jointly significant, whereas those that no longer demonstrate significance are classified as marginally significant. 2.9 MR Utilizing candidate genes identified through TWAS analyses, we conducted an MR analysis with the ‘TwoSampleMR’ R package (version 0.6.8) to investigate the potential causal associations between these genes and longevity.
The subgroup with history of stroke had the lowest accuracy (range: 75%–83%) and lowest NPV (range: 85%–88%).” The following from Section 3.3 should be omitted, reflecting updates to Table 5 : “while the association between minority race and false positive classification was substantially elevated, but only significant or marginally significant for half of the observed code definitions.” Finally, the following sentences of the Discussion, should be omitted: “All ICD‐10 code definitions considered had similar accuracy (87%–90%) and NPV (96%–98%) against RADC dementia classification.
Voxels reported as significant in all group-level results were those that survived an initial height threshold of p < 0.001, uncorrected at voxel level ( Z > 3.09) to isolate clusters, and p < 0.05, family wise error (FWE)-corrected for multiple comparisons at the cluster level, excepting the marginally significant correlation between the right angular gyrus and STAI total score in the ASD group ( p FWE = 0.057; see “ Results ” section).
Furthermore, the participants have had marginally significant higher odds of being unvaccinated against HPV if they were employed in public-sector schools compared with those who worked for private-sector schools (adjusted OR 2.15; 95% CI: 0.87–5.35; p < 0.099).
Also, when considering the distribution of the sample across subpopulations (gender, type of education, and nature of the educational institutions), the sampling error and proportion are variable, noting that the sample is representative of the public education subpopulation (90% ≈ 4.4%), and marginally significant for the subpopulations of polytechnic education (85% ≈ 4.7%) and female gender (85% ≈ 4.5).