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 = 0.0481.0× alphagold
There was a small and marginally significant improvement in LVEF with combination β-blocker/digoxin compared with placebo/digoxin after 4 months of treatment (30.6 ± 9.6% vs. 26.0 ± 12.4%; P = 0.048). 56 Calcium channel blockers Non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (verapamil or diltiazem) are not recommended in patients with signific
marginally significantp =0.0481.0× alphagold
The baseline characteristics of the patients in two groups in terms of age, BMI, nationality, tumor size, number and location were well balanced ( Table 1 ), but the difference in sex distribution was marginally significant ( p =0.048).
marginally significantP value = 0.0481.0× alphagold
Similarly, moderately decreased serum LDL-C concentrations were also detected in the intervention group, although the difference was marginally significant (mean (SD): 75.33 (31.28) mg/dL vs . 94.60 (31.29) mg/dL; effect size: -0.62 (-1.22—-0.01); P value = 0.048).
marginally significantp = 0.0481.0× alphagold
Despite a marginally significant Begg’s test ( p = 0.048), it is unlikely that this plot suggests the presence of publication bias given the small number of studies included in the analysis and the type of studies that are absent in the funnel plot (small studies reporting a positive association between OCPs and CVST).
marginally significantp = 0.0481.0× alphagold
Fitting the interaction between 7PS and dataset generated a marginal improvement in the model (Chisq = 10.905, p = 0.02352, df = 3), with the interaction 7PS* 35SNP_historical_cats being marginally significant (est = 0.228 ± 0.11, t = 2.00, p = 0.048).
marginally significantp = 0.0481.0× alphagold
Taking the known SoFT mutation status in 537 patients into comparison, the marginally significant difference in survival time was present in patients with TARDBP mutations [ TARDBP (+): 2 vs. >2: 58.1 vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.048], while there was no significant difference in patients carrying SOD1 (log-rank p = 0.22), FUS (log-rank p = 0.55), or SoFT(–) (log-rank p = 0.08).
marginally significantP =.0481.0× alphagold
IM-1 (80%) was not significantly different from Med-PaLM 2 (80% vs 92%, difference=12 percentage points, P =.16), LLaVA-Med (80% vs 76%; P =.50), BioGPT (80% vs 68%; P =.22), or ChatGPT 5.0 (80% vs 64%; P =.048—marginally significant).
marginally significantp = 0.0481.0× alphagold
The pretest–posttest mean differences of the HBM constructs were not also statistically significant in the control group ( p > 0.05), except for the mean difference of the perceived benefits that showed a marginally significant difference upon completion of the study ( p = 0.048).
marginally significantp = 0.0481.0× alphagold
Meanwhile, our patients undergoing thoracic surgery had no significant difference in mild pain ( p = 0.083) and a marginally significant difference in moderate to severe pain ( p = 0.048) in comparison of patients undergoing surgery of skin and connective tissue ( Table 2 ), which might have resulted from the intraoperative intercostal nerve block prescribed in patients undergoing thoracic surgery.
marginally significantp = 0.0481.0× alphagold
Concerning FFM, just old rats in the ST25 group had a larger – tough marginally significant – percent increase from baseline compared with the old ST12 group (diet effect, same age, p = 0.048), and also tended to have a greater increase of FFM than adult ST25 rats (age effect, same diet, p = 0.061), see Figure 1E .