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

FR3_15_min_con ( t (45) = -3.399, p < 0.01), FS_Score ( t (45) = 4.836, p < 0.001), Onset_Skew ( t (45) = -3.255, p < 0.01), Binge ( t (45) = 2.337, p < 0.05) and Sex*Conflict_Pref ( t (45) = -3.071, p < 0.01) were all significant predictors of Ext_Score, while the Sex term ( t (45) = -1.826, p = 0.074) was marginally significant, suggesting less persistent pressing in extinction in males, and the Conflict_Pref term was insignificant ( t (45) = 1.349, p = 0.184) but remained in the model as it was part of the interaction.
A series of sensitivity analyses to cope with missing data did not change the main results, except that 1) the marginally significant associations (including myopathy associated with statin use; dementia, TIA and BMI≥35 associated with high-intensity statin use) in the main analysis vanished but IMD groups 2 and 3 were associated with slightly decreased use of statins when the analysis was restricted to those with individual IMD; and that 2) the associations of BMI≥35 with increased use of any statin and high-intensity statin vanished when the missing value of BMI was replaced by the 95th percentile value.
The logistic regression analyses of the IQ outcomes dichotomised at the sample mean minus one SD showed neither statistically significant nor systematic differences between the two exposure categories and the reference group, except for an increased risk of low VIQ in the 1–9 category compared to the reference group that was marginally significant in the unadjusted analysis (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.03, 3.09) ( Table 3 ).
Within each need level group, intervention and control participants did not differ in any baseline characteristics except in two instances where marginally significant differences between the intervention and control participants were noted, both within the moderate needs group: the prevalence of current alcohol dependence was higher in control participants (33%) compared to intervention participants (24%, p = 0.046), and the number of participants who provided information suggesting a history of a learning disability was higher in control (41%) compared to intervention participants (31%, p = 0.044).
Here, a marginally significant interaction was established between embedded word frequency and the number of embedded words, (GD: b = 1.18, SE = 0.66, t = 1.78; TVT: b = 2.01, SE = 1.17, t = 1.71; number of fixations: b = 1.18, SE = 0.66, t = 1.78), such that the facilitatory main effect of embedded words was slightly stronger when they were low-frequency (i.e., below the frequency median of 4.95: b = –3.60, SE = 0.94, t = –3.84) compared to when they were high-frequency (i.e., above the frequency median: b = –2.09, SE = 1.11, t = –1.88).
Of the MLA studies, one study shows a statistically significant difference 28 and one study shows a marginally significant difference favoring MLA versus control, 25 whereas 2 studies (Tuuli et al 26 and Uchino et al 27 ) show a higher rate of SSIs in the MLA group and the remaining 4 studies show a slightly lower rate of SSIs in the MLA group.
These trials have shown little therapeutic benefit to the patients enrolled[ 19 ] , with the exception of a combination of erlotinib and gemcitabine, which shows only a marginally significant benefit.[ 93 ] Therefore, identification of new molecular target(s) as well as approach for modulation of tumor microenvironment (eg, tumor stroma,[ 12 13 94 ] tumor-associated inflammation[ 65 66 ] ) is necessary for developing therapeutic strategies that enhance the effect of gemcitabine and improve patient survival.