Barely Significant
← all phrases

only marginally significant

5,073 sentences · 5,073 papers · 5,448 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p<1.0p=0.9

Listed by Hankins, posted since · Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

only marginally significantp = .061.2× alphagold
Mean perilesional perfusion changes compared to homologous contralateral regions While a numerical difference in perilesional perfusion between the left ( M = 0.54, SD = 0.33) and right side ( M = 0.64, SD = 0.29) of the brain was still observed at follow up, this difference was only marginally significant, t (12) = 2.08, p = .06, q = .045, ns.
only marginally significantp = 0.0601.2× alphagold
Among the females, the risk of occupational injury was tended to increase with job tenure (i.e., 2.5% in those with job tenure of less than a year; 2.4% in those with 1–4 years; 3.5% in those with 5–9 years; and 5.4% in those with 10 years or more), although the difference was only marginally significant ( p = 0.060).
Satisfaction with life and the risk of occupational injury.
Ann Occup Environ Med · 2018 · PMC6090966
only marginally significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
However, this statement is made with strong caution as the multivariate test was—at best—only marginally significant and the effect was extremely weak (Pillai’s Trace V = 0.07, Multivariate F (6, 346) = 2.04, p = 0.06; η p 2 = 0.03; underlying multivariate normality assumptions were met: Box M = 14.98, F (12, 64318.95) = 1.21, p = 0.27).
only marginally significantP = 0.061.2× alphagold
In addition, the WIC declined at a higher rate than BIC with increasing latitude, however was only marginally significant (Fig. 3 A,B; WIC: slope = −0.05, r 2 = 0.41, F 1,7 = 4.92, P = 0.06; BIC: slope = −0.03, r 2 = 0.25, F 1,7 = 2.38, P = 0.17) and was largely influenced by the slope of the beluga data.
only marginally significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
The meta‐analysis showed that implant sites augmented with XCM had more favorable changes in color when compared to implant sites augmented with FGG, but the difference was only marginally significant (MD −1.19; 95% CI −2.40 to 0.03; p = 0.06; Figure 4f ).