“borderline significant”

Time alone displayed a borderline significant effect (Pseudo-F = 3.3849; p = 0.0531; PERMDISP: p = 0.0003).

BMI had borderline significant impact on Qave with p value = 0.0531.

Additionally, there was a borderline significant reduction in oil and fat intake, decreasing from 59·05% to 45·71% (mean difference 0·133, p = 0·0531).

More boys than girls were lost to follow-up, (borderline significant; P = 0.0532) while there were no significant differences in attrition by SEP or pupils’ daily FV intake at baseline.

This analysis showed a more symmetric funnel plot, and the results of Egger’s test was borderline significant [95%-CI [0.61–7.22] /p-value = 0.0533].

However, the test for interaction between smoking status and blood group on the risk of PC was borderline significant ( p = 0.0533).

A great deal of inter-individual heterogeneity is seen in this small cohort and only the difference between CD4+ CD25+ FoxP3+ T cell in CMV-seropositive-vs-seronegative individuals was even borderline significant ( p = 0.0536).

8.5 nmol/L, p-value =0.0011, respectively), while it was borderline significant in the deceased versus survivors (2.4 vs . 4.8 nmol/L, p-value =0.0536) ( Table 4 and Figure 2 ).

For Ki-67, analysis of variance demonstrated a significant effect for sorafenib ( p = 0.0101), and for 5-FU + sorafenib interaction ( p = 0.0049), the 5-FU main effect was borderline significant ( p = 0.0537) as compared to the control group.

Among patients with CAD presence of coronary stents was borderline significant for a longer LOS (3.39 days, p = 0.0538).

On the contrary, we noted a borderline significant association between perianal disease risk and the smoke habit ( p = 0.0538), suggesting an increased risk for heavy smokers.

In addition, RVV index was borderline significant (p = 0.0538) as compared to the control group.

The dietary omega-6/omega-3 ratio determined from FFQ data was borderline significant between groups ( p = 0.0539).

The most convincing results were obtained for IL-6 (Table 3 ): there was a significant correlation with ECOG-PS, ADL, iADL, and a borderline significant correlation with the CCI (p=0.0539).

In a combined analysis of study A and Study B, there was a borderline significant increase of Mac-2 area of ≈3.8-fold in the vehicle-treated group compared with control ( p = 0.0539), and treatment with semaglutide reduced the Mac-2 area significantly with ≈67% ( p = 0.0135, Table 1 ). 3.6.

In accordance with the proportionally larger increase in W than H, the height/weight ratio decreased significantly between the age groups of 4.0–4.5 and 5.0–5.5 years (p = 0.050), and the difference between age group 3.5–4.0 and 5.0–5.5 was borderline significant (p = 0.054).

A borderline significant positive correlation was found between INR and ammonium concentration ( p = 0.054) in ArLD patients.

Serum C3M was significantly correlated with ESR ( p<0.0001 ) and CRP ( p<0.0001 ), as well as with mSASSS ( p = 0.0006 ), but was of only borderline significant correlation ( p = 0.054 ) with BASDAI ( table 4 ).

The Kaplan–Meier showed a borderline significant difference for BMI (≤30 and >30, logrank p = 0.054) and VH recurrence (see Figure 1 ); no significant differences were observed for type of mesh (logrank p = 0.63) ( Figure 2 ).

The 51 min difference in light PA in favor of the CP group was borderline significant ( p = 0.054).

Age emerged as a borderline significant predictor (B = 0.45, SE = 0.24, p = 0.054), suggesting that older individuals may be more likely to exhibit diastolic dysfunction.

The postprandial DMAA score associated with fasting glycaemia after meat consumption ( P = 0.027) and displayed borderline significant associations after ingestion of fish and plant protein (both associations P = 0.054), but no significant association was seen between the postprandial DMAA score and fasting glycaemia after dairy consumption.

The Spearman correlation values for adult reconstruction, foot and ankle, musculoskeletal oncology, pediatrics, spine, and trauma were not significant, although the value for pediatrics was borderline significant (p = 0.054).

Grade 1–2) showed a borderline significant association (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00–2.29, p = 0.054), while male gender demonstrated a trend toward better survival that did not reach statistical significance (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52–1.01, p = 0.059).

The protective effect was stronger in non‐diabetic patients (47.5% relative risk reduction) than in diabetic patients (24.4% relative risk reduction), with a borderline significant interaction ( p = 0.054). 3.5 Multiple Testing Corrections and Sensitivity Analyses Multiple testing corrections and sensitivity analyses are presented in Table 5 and Figure S2 .