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

For reverse digit span scores, although the overall association was marginally significant ( p for overall trend = 0.0995), the individual spline terms remained significant, suggesting a consistent positive non-linear trend (full-adjusted spline terms β 1 = 0.974, p = 0.0352; β 2 = 2.209, p = 0.0447).
Guided by plot patterns in Figure 3 and marginally significant interaction effects based on the unadjusted p -values ( Table 2 ), our exploratory stratified analyses suggested a potential moderating effect of influencer credibility on the experimental condition for intentions to use e-cigarettes in the next 6 months and overall susceptibility ( Table 2 ).
Results: Each additional $1,000 of annual LTSS spending per older adult was associated with a marginally significant 4.2-percentage point reduction in the probability of reporting poor health (Average Marginal Effect [AME] in percentage points [PP] = −4.21, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] = −9.12-0.70, p = 0.093).
There was a marginally significant between-subjects effect for the composite measure, with lower levels of partisan prejudice from those participants in the SE-Reduction message condition ( M = −0.08; SD = 0.90) relative to those in the TE-Increase condition ( M = 0.12; SD = 0.88; F (1, 297) = 3.89, p = .050; partial η 2 = .01; 95% CI = 0.00, 0.40). 6 We then tested if the SE-Reduction message, relative to the TE-Increase message, indirectly predicted prejudice through weakened social essentialism.
Regarding measurement tools and cognitive types, Eyelink (r = 0.459, k = 55, p = 0.014, 95% CI [0.092, 0.825]) and Tobii (r = 0.509, k = 61, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.196, 0.823]) showed significant positive correlations with post-editor cognition, while Gazepoint (r = 0.574, k = 25, p = 0.051) and others (r = 0.372, k = 52, p = 0.056) were marginally significant.
MMSE score was significantly negatively correlated with the daily average of PM 2.5 and PM 10 , while the cooking-time-weighted average of PM 2.5 (correlation coefficient (r) was −0.27, −0.28, and −0.28; a marginally significant negative correlation was observed with the cooking-time-weighted average of PM 2.5 (r = −0.28), as shown in Figure 4 A.