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

We did not establish such evidence, although the stimuli used in the present experiments were carefully crafted according to the respective phonation rules in German, English, and Portuguese and had produced reliable in–out effects in within-subjects designs in previous publications, and proved reliable in additional within-subjects replications reported here (for Experiments 1a–c). Furthermore, according to our knowledge being the first to implement a pronounceability manipulation in a one-shot between-subjects design, we did find a marginally significant effect (Experiment 1e).
This limitation also entails pseudo-replication among some habitat level comparisons, potentially biasing parameter estimates and inferences of statistical significance (Davies and Gray 2015 ), particularly for those trophic guilds that displayed marginally significant or non-significant results.
Compared with participants who (as reported in 2014/2015) used the Internet both at home and elsewhere (e.g., at work, education, another person’s home, on the move, library, or internet café), those who used the Internet only elsewhere were indeed less likely to have increased their likelihood of daily Internet use from before to shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, but this was only a marginally significant difference; whereas those who used the Internet only at home were more likely to have increased their likelihood of daily use.
Here, we found no association between pre-diagnostic circulating resistin concentrations and the risk of CRC; however, we observed a marginally significant association among cases (and their matched controls) diagnosed with CRC within the first two years of follow-up, whereas no such association was observed among cases (and their matched controls) diagnosed with CRC after two years of follow-up.
However, during the fourth day of follow up, both WBC (OR = 0.261; 95% CI: 0.075, 0.908; p = 0.035) and lymphocyte percentage (OR = 1.074; 95% CI: 1.012, 1.141; p = 0.019) were marginally significant, in which increasing WBC was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of ANC count increase, compared to the lymphocyte percentage which exhibited an increase in the likelihood.