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 = 0.0741.5× alphagold
Results Variation in body condition, migration timing and distance and survival in relation to age and sex Differences in body condition of juvenile and adult individuals were only marginally significant in females (mean SMI ± s.d.; juveniles: 622.5 ± 73.0 g, n = 16; adults: 666.6 ± 68.2 g, n = 20; Student’s T -test: t = − 1.851, df = 31.24, p = 0.074) and non-significant in males (juveniles: 526.9 ± 51.0 g, n = 7; adults: 544.3 ± 60.4 g, n = 11; Student’s T -test: t = − 0.656, df = 14.53, p = 0.522).
only marginally significantP =0.0741.5× alphagold
Entering strength of reprocessing in SWS and time spent in this sleep stage in a regression model, we found that only strength of reprocessing in SWS was a significant predictor of memory consolidation and explained a larger part of the variance ( β =0.335, P =0.006, explaining 11.2% of the variance), whereas duration of SWS was only marginally significant ( β =0.214, P =0.074, explaining 5.2% of the variance).
only marginally significantp = 0.0741.5× alphagold
f value was also higher at post-FR30 compared to post-run for BFL, although the result was only marginally significant ( p = 0.074; d = 0.91). f value was not significantly different at post-FR30 compared to post-run for SM ( p = 0.485; d = 0.4). f value returned to post-run level at post-FR60 in all three muscles (all p > 0.05; all d < 0.2).
only marginally significantP = .0741.5× alphagold
When we merged data of TG and TT genotype carriers together and compared their pooled frequency versus that of GG genotype in a model of logistic regression analysis taking into account the age effect, we observed a higher frequency of GG in patients than in controls, although the difference was only marginally significant (OR = 1.773; 95% CI = 0.947–3.320; P = .074; Table 3 ). 3.2.
only marginally significantP = 0.07411.5× alphagold
The correlation between observed and predicted AU2ROC is positive and statistically significant only for the MP ( Figure 7A , r = 0.36, P = 0.0232) while it is not statistically significant for the QSR ( Figure 7C , r = 0.06, P = 0.7233) and only marginally significant for the SCR ( Figure 7B , r = 0.29, P = 0.0741).
only marginally significantp = 0.0751.5× alphagold
The interaction was only marginally significant for Academic Performance (F (57,1) = 3.3, p = 0.075, η 2 p = 0.055, observed power 0.43), albeit with a similar pattern, with an improvement in males and a worsening in females, which was also observed for Subjective Feelings and Leisure Activities, although it did not approach statistical significance (probably because of the small number of females).