“at the limit of significance”

While the other significant difference, albeit at the limit of significance (p<.005) between the two groups of wards is the one referring to "Medicines not available when needed" and contrary to the other two significant differences, the highest measure was in the wards with HCA.

The mean ± SD of the differences in the BI recovery points measured with the two smooth tests of -1.86 ± 4.69 PD ( Fig 5B ) were at the limit of significance considering the adjusted significance level ( t (48) = -2.78, p = 0.008, Cohen’s d = 0.39).

The group that underwent a single level en bloc resection consistently showed an increase in EQ-5D-3L index score from baseline at 12 months and also at the limit of significance at 24 months (0.120 [0.003; 0.247], p=0.045 and 0.138 [-0.005; 0.281], p=0.059, respectively).

Though at the limit of significance (p = 0.046), deep deletion of SIRT6 tends to co-occur with PIK3CA amplification/activating mutations (Fig.

was recorded in only one sample of SNOW and five samples of ICE, with a p-value at the limit of significance ( P = 0.046), indicating that this result has to be interpreted with caution (Fig. 5 a and b and Table S6).

Finally, the variation in Clavien–Dindo classification was at the limit of significance ( p = 0.048), with the greatest fluctuations in group I, group II, and group IVa ( Table 1 ).

Age also correlated with myocardial fibrosis, but at the limit of significance ( P = 0.048); no significant correlation with cardiovascular co‐morbidities was recorded ( Table 5 A ).

In a randomized trial, its prophylactic administration in a pediatric population resulted in decreased SOS incidence, from 20% to 12%, although the P values were just at the limit of significance ( Z test for competing risk analysis P = 0.0488; log-rank test P = 0.0507) ( 10 , 11 ).

Although statistical analysis has indicated that these differences are significant, they were at the limit of significance ( p = 0.049).

In addition, 4 atrial regions with LVZs were more frequently present at the limit of significance in elderly patients (3 [4.5%] vs 2 [0.7%]; P =.05) ( Figure 2 ).

Two-way ANOVA showed that vWAT weight was significantly affected both by the different genotypes and diets ( Figure 4 D) but not by their combination, although it was at the limit of significance ( p = 0.05).

For the rs1800629 TNF-α polymorphism, the GA + AA genotypes showed a significant association ( p = 0.038) with the presence of unfavorable histology and were at the limit of significance ( p = 0.05) with high-risk category and INSS stage 4; however, there were no associations with other prognostic factors ( Table A1 ).

This difference is at the limit of significance (test Chi 2 p = 0.05).

Additionally, the residual volume was significantly higher in the LV remod group (37.7 ± 17.7% vs 22.5 ± 10.1%, p < 0.001); the direct flow was significantly lower in the LV remod group (20.7 ± 7.3% vs 35.3 ± 8.2%, p < 0.001) while the retained inflow was at the limit of significance between both groups (22 ± 6.4% vs 18.6 ± 6%, p = 0.05).

The difference in pFRS between the two groups was at the limit of significance ( P = 0.05), whereas the mean increase in pFRS in the central 4° was greater in the FS group (+2.43 ± 0.82 dB vs. +1.79 ± 0.86 dB; P = 0.037).

Mutual comparison between the R and NR epileptic patient groups using a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) results in no significant predictors (Age at epilepsy onset: p -value = 0.076, Age at VNS implantation: p -value = 0.070, Gender at the limit of significance: p -value = 0.0504, EEG measurement time before VNS implantation: p -value = 0.167, and type of epilepsy: p -value ≥0.485.

When compared to non-stimulated sequences, we observed a decrease for the stimulated sequences for the right LatFG only, although at the limit of significance (F6-F7: p = 0.051; F’3-F’4: p = 0.11; two-tailed paired permutation tests). 3.3.

The presence of radiological changes significantly increased the chances of prolonged hospitalization ( p = 0.029; OR = 0.002; 95% CI: 0.00–0.53), while the older age category was at the limit of significance in predicting a longer stay ( p = 0.051; OR = 0.011).

This difference was at the limit of significance ( P = 0.052) 150 ( Table 14 ). 4.4.4 | Clinical recommendations Tissue engineering strategies are safe treatment options for peri-implant bone reconstruction.

Multivariate analysis showed that patient outcome could be predicted by miRNA/mRNA expression profiles after the first ( p = 0.0064) and the third LuPRRT ( p = 0.0105), whereas Ki-67 index was at the limit of significance ( p = 0.0521) ( Table 3 ).

The statistical analysis of Claudin 4 immunoexpression indicated values at the limit of significance in relation to the tumor grade (p=0.053, χ2 test), without associations with the histopathological type (p=0.291, χ2 test), and tumor stage (p=0.183, χ2 test).

As the VAT/SAT and WHR ratio increased, we observed lower concentrations of reduced glutathione; however, these differences were not statistically significant (although in the case of the WHR ratio, they were at the limit of significance p = 0.053; Table 3 and Table 4 ).

A decrease in bacterial phylogenetic diversity was also observed in the LRT (p≤0.001) and at the limit of significance in the URT (p=0.053), without reverting to the pre-treatment level until the end of the observation period for the LRT and more transiently for the URT ( figure 2b ).

SOD levels were also depleted in the DOX Au-NP-treated animals, but with a p -value at the limit of significance ( p = 0.053).

The diabetic population not treated with metformin also presented a lower cancer-specific index, even if the p -value was at the limit of significance ( p = 0.054).