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

Moreover, the conditional effects were marginally significant for participants who continued to work during the lockdown and had high levels of IU (FS-, IU+; although not significant at the traditional p < .05, the interactions were significant at b = −.17, p = .058; b = −.24, p = .069 for contract violation and emotional exhaustion, respectively), but not for those of them who had low levels of IU (FS-, IU-; b = −.02, p = .81; b = -.11, p = .37 for contract violation and emotional exhaustion, respectively).
Then, we modified the initial path-analysis models ( Appendix 1—figure 4 and Appendix 1—figure 5 ) to eliminate nonsignificant paths until only significant or marginally significant paths remained or a minimal value of Akaike’s information criterion for small sample size ( AICc ) was reached ( Brewer et al., 2016 ).
Test results were considered as significant when \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\text {p}\,<\,0.05$$\end{document} p < 0.05 and as marginally significant (trend of significance) when \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\text {p}\,<\,0.1$$\end{document} p < 0.1 .
Table S5 shows that the interaction between age and PM 2.5 was not significant (linear interaction P -value = 0.08 and non-linear interaction P -value = 0.06), while Table S6 shows the interaction between age and PM 10 had a marginally significant effect on serum 25OHD levels (linear P -value for interaction = 0.045 and non-linear P -value for interaction = 0.04).
The slope angle and SOL thickness as covariates with significant or marginally significant interactions with the locality factor were closely related (Fig. 2 B): the regression coefficient of SOL thickness on slope angle was significant in Bucharama (b = − 0.126, p = 0.017) and marginally significant in Malyj Orokan (b = − 0.377, p = 0.088), with no significant difference between them.