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

However, it is noteworthy that the distal pathway in the serial mediation model (digital technology use → emotional intelligence → learning engagement →English academic performance) exhibited marginally significant t-value (1.389), suggesting statistical uncertainty in this indirect effect.
Consider replacing with “marginally significant” or simply report the p-values without interpretation. 3-2.Model Justification in Methods:Though addressed in the response letter, a brief explanation in the manuscript text of why dichotomization was necessary (due to assumption violations) would improve transparency for readers. 3-3.Mood Assessment Limitations:Consider briefly discussing how a single-item mood measure may not differentiate between positive and negative affect, which may explain some differences from Titone et al. or Depp et al. 4.Conclusion: The authors have made substantive improvements in response to the first review.
Overall, the factors that affected growth significantly were the concentration of N, P, Zn, Cu, B, Mn, Mo, Fe and vitamin solution and N source in the case of mutant 8G, the concentration of N, P, Ca, Cu and N source, and Zn was marginally significant for 7Y growth and the concentration of N, P, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, Ni and N source for mutant 31 W (Fig. 1 a and b).
(2023) do not directly report statistical outcomes for this comparison, the benefit scores they report do not suggest a significant improvement in clinician-fitted relative to unaided outcomes (though as discussed below the clinician-fitted benefit at the 6-week evaluation appears to be marginally significant in the latter study).
Furthermore, although several high-quality randomized-controlled trials only demonstrated equal or marginally significant advantages for csPCa detection by utilizing TP over TR biopsy in the TRANSLATE, PROBE-PC, PREVENT, and PERFECT trials (60% vs. 54%, 62% vs. 59%, 53% vs. 50%, and 47% vs. 54%, respectively) [ 35 ], the findings offer important insights.
Lastly, in the unadjusted Difference-in-Differences OLS model, the difference-in-differences estimate for Knowledge Score was 1.34 (SE = 0.70; p < 0.10), indicating that lecture attendees increased their total knowledge score by 1.34 points more than controls—a marginally significant effect.
Age similarly demonstrated robust association with mortality (P for overall < 0.001) and marginally significant non-linearity (P for non-linear = 0.059), showing a relatively stable risk until age 60 years followed by an exponential increase.