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

The measures used suggested a marginally significant difference for hearing shift between workers who reported rare versus frequent use of hearing protection devices.[ 17 ] The purpose of our study was to assess objective occupational NIHL, as measured by audiometric testing, and determine its relation to subjective sensation of hearing loss as well as to auditory and vestibular symptoms in Spanish workers exposed to occupational noise in the construction industry.
Prognostic value of NLR and T2DM with significant CAD According to simply logistic regression analysis, the marginally significant baseline clinical and laboratory covariates including age, gender, smoking status, hypertension, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin, T2DM, and NLR were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model ( Table 2 ).
Term infants showed a higher change in oxyhaemoglobin concentration ( ∆ HbO) than preterm infants in the right inferior-frontal region (IF), being marginally significant in the first time window and significant in the second time window for the full face condition (non-parametric, p = 0.051 and 0.019 , respectively; significance would be lost if FDR is applied to correct for multiple comparisons); and in the left IF region during the second time window ( F(1,46) = 4.662, p group = 0.036 , main effect) while follow-up analyses showed no group difference within each condition.
When limiting the analysis to 212 heavy drinkers (≥2 drinks/day for women and ≥3 drinks/day for men), significantly higher risk of alcoholic FLD was found for higher levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (OR SD 1.79; 95% CI 1.07–2.99), PFHxS (OR SD 2.06; 95% CI 1.17–3.65), and perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (OR SD 1.44; 95% CI 1.00–2.07), and marginally significant higher risk for total PFAS (OR SD 2.12; 95% CI 0.99–4.54).
In the video-task randomization, rMSSD increased during stimulation in both groups ( ps < .04), followed by a further increase during the video in the sham group ( ps = .03), and a decrease in the active group ( p = .045); then, the opposite pattern emerged, with a significant increase from recovery from the video to task in the active group ( ps = .04) and a marginally significant decrease in the sham group ( ps < .056) ( Fig. 2 , lower panel).
Regarding choice, higher money and shock levels led to more approach and avoidance, respectively (as preregistered, statistical effects whose Bayesian 95% and 90% posterior highest density interval ‘HDI’ did not include 0 were interpreted as ‘significant’ and ‘marginally significant’, respectively, see Methods for details; B money = 1.54, HDI 95% = [1.26, 1.83]; B shocks = −1.10, HDI 95% = [−1.35, −0.84]; Fig. 2a ).