Barely Significant
← all phrases

only marginally significant

5,077 sentences · 5,077 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 = 0.071.4× alphagold
No significant correlations ( p s > 0.1) were found between the ELS subcales and lifetime ayahuasca intake (ELS-v: ρ = 0.08, n.s.; ELS-f: ρ = 0.01, n.s.), and only marginally significant correlations emerged between the ELS subscales and the age of initial ayahuasca intake (ELS-v: r = 0.10, p = 0.07; ELS-f: r = 0.13, p = 0.05).
only marginally significantp = 0.0711.4× alphagold
We do note that when analyzed by litter, reductions in ChAT + neuron counts within the dorsolateral and dorsomedial striatum were only marginally significant (DLS: t (7) = 2.13, p = 0.071; DMS: t (7) = 2.01, p = 0.085, Supplementary Table 1 ), despite being significant in animal-based analysis.
only marginally significantp = .0711.4× alphagold
Regardless of the alignment of visual representations all networks produced the expected interactions of frequency by consistency (all p s < .05) and lexicality by length (all p s < .05), except for the left aligned (LA) version where the lexicality by length interaction was only marginally significant ( p = .071).
"Serial" effects in parallel models of reading.
Cogn Psychol · 2012 · PMC3657192
only marginally significantp = 0.0721.4× alphagold
When both direct and indirect effects are considered, the total effect of resilience on distress is negative but only marginally significant (β = –0.081, p = 0.072), suggesting that resilience alleviates distress mainly through its positive relationship with hope rather than by a strong direct impact.
only marginally significantp = 0.0721.4× alphagold
While the variances of genetic distances were 5.5% higher in the urban habitat when urbanization was classified based on Distance from the City Center, this difference was only marginally significant and had a small effect size ( F 1,254 = 3.250, p = 0.072, R 2 = 0.013).
only marginally significantp = 0.0721.4× alphagold
Mass across populations was explained by SVL ( R 2 = 0.874, F 1,97 = 419.864, p < 0.001), with differences in body condition only marginally significant ( F 6,97 = 2.007, p = 0.072). 3.2 Laboratory Experiment 3.2.1 Body Size and Growth Rates Among the subset of three populations examined for latitudinal variation in reproductive characteristics and intrinsic growth rate, we found significant differences in SVL, mass, and body condition (SVL: Brown–Forsythe F 2,26 = 3.816, p = 0.035; mass: Brown–Forsythe F 2,26 = 32.866, p = 0.009; body condition: SVL, F 1,48 = 312.896, p < 0.001; and population, F 2,48 = 3.487, p = 0.039; Figure 3 ).