close to significanceP = .042
However, it was not significant in model 2 ( P = .167) and remained close to significance in model 3 ( P = .042).
However, it was not significant in model 2 ( P = .167) and remained close to significance in model 3 ( P = .042).
However, it became nonsignificant in Model 2 (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.73–3.57, P = .230) and remained near-significant in Model 3 (OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 0.96–4.68, P = .064), suggesting a potential positive association despite not reaching the conventional threshold for statistical significance.