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, the subgroup analysis of mortality in cohort 1 should be interpreted with caution, because the difference in effects between subgroups was moderate, the intervention–subgroup interaction was marginally significant, and the subgroups defined by CD4 cell count were not precisely defined in advance.
The result of clinical trial in Thailand testing with various subtype B canarypox-HIV-1 recombinant vaccine candidates and boosters containing subunit glycoprotein 120 or 160 did not generate strong cellular or detectable neutralizing antibody responses to HIV-1 yet showed marginally significant protection from infection [ 4 ].
As predicted, we also observed a marginally significant correlation between a measure of visuomotor performance and regional deformation of the putamen surface, which was significant in the medial and posterior putamen, where most premotor and supplementary motor area projections terminate [ 45 ], suggesting a possible association between neurological and behavioral abnormalities.
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.
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).
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 ).