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 = 0.19814.0× alphagold
While this preferential settlement was only marginally significant for each plant genotype, Ler or Ll-0, when analyzed separately (F 1,40 = 1.72, P = 0.1981 and F 1,40 = 3.37, P = 0.0743 for Ler and Ll-0 respectively), it was significant when data from both genotypes were pooled together (F 1,80 = 4.86, P = 0.0304), indicating that virus infection reduced aphid preference after 24 h.
only marginally significantP = 0.4408.8× alphagold
The effects of Carbonyl ( P = 0.001), HTN ( P = 0.036), age ( P = 0.044) and smoking status ( P = 0.005) were still statistically significant, whereas the effect of area ( P = 0.107) was only marginally significant, and the effects of PAD stage ( P = 0.440), ABI (P = 0.259), BMI ( P = 0.233), and DM ( P = 0.971) were far from statistically significant.
only marginally significantp = 0.5611.2× alphagold
Testing 1078 miRNAs and 211 TF binding sites separately, we found one miRNA and 4 TFs consistently enriched across the 19 datasets for the up-down pattern, relative to up-up; however, the results were non-significant and only marginally significant compared to permutations (one-sided p = 0.56 and p = 0.069), respectively.
only marginally significantp = 0.57511.5× alphagold
Compared to the reference level (no involvement), all levels of participation are positively valued, although with different levels of significance: medium-low involvement (0.258; p = 0.002) is positive and significant; medium-high involvement (0.151; p = 0.073) is positive but only marginally significant; high involvement (0.049; p = 0.575) is positive but not significant.
only marginally significantP = 0.6112.2× alphagold
However, in the multivariate logistic regression analysis of the comparative cohort, the application of the same algorithm for prediction of lymph node involvement was only marginally significant and only due to the impact of vascular invasion (CD8: P = 0.61; vascular invasion: P = 0.02; tumor border configuration: P = 0.166).
Rank effects for loss of appetite became only marginally significant when controlling for gender, and being an assistant professor was protective, with the odds of loss of appetite decreasing by 114% for assistant professors compared to associate professors (OR = 2.14, 95% CI [0.98, 4.66], p = 0.055).