“borderline significant”

Otherwise, we examined univariate analysis results. To eliminate the impact of the borderline significant results, we considered P≤0.05 as significant (not P=0.051).

A linear mixed effects model fitted to stimulus value ratings (i.e., how much participants wanted to eat the food items) found a main effect of group ( ß = 0.10, SE = 0.03, p = 0.003, 95% CI [0.03–0.16]), controlled for BMI, which had a borderline significant effect on stimulus value ratings ( ß = 0.01, SE = 0.006 p = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.0002 to 0.02]).

rvention with vorapaxar as compared with placebo. PAI-2 decreased significantly in favor of vorapaxar as compared with placebo in the total study population ( p = 0.025) at late FU, essentially driven by changes in the post-MI (chronic CHD) patients ( p = 0.054), whereas vorapaxar induced a borderline significant increase ( p = 0.05) in NSTEMI (TRACER) patients during short-term therapy ( Table 6 ).

There was a borderline significant association between adjuvant chemotherapy and delay in stoma closure (median 4 vs. 6 months; p = 0.05), although a multi-variate analysis incorporating these two predictors did not reveal either as independent risk factors.

We observed a borderline significant increased risk for kidney disease (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49, P = 0.05).

Body weight: There was a borderline significant difference in BW‐kg change between study arms ( P = 0.05).

In the full model, COVID-19 was borderline significant ( p = 0.05), while age was highly significant ( p < 0.01).

A borderline significant association remained after controlling for differences in age category, sex, and site location (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% CI [1.00, 2.88], p = 0.05).

Treatment protocols revealed a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.05).

In addition, multivariate analyses revealed a borderline significant association between locality and 8-oxodG in the urine of all newborns (p = 0.05).

Performing a multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression with sex and age, sex proved to be an independent variable (HR 2.45; 95% CI 1.63–3.70; p < 0.001), whereas age was borderline significant (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77–1.001; p = 0.050).

In the present study, CRP levels were higher in deceased patients compared to survivors, although this difference was borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

In the worst-case scenario, all excluded patients were assumed to experience UNOs, yielding a borderline significant increase in UNO risk for RTS compared to LTS (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.00–1.19; p = 0.05; I 2 = 33%; Fig.

Gender was found to be borderline significant in univariate analysis ( p = 0.05) but not significant in multivariate models, which is in line with our findings regarding gender 31 .

The overall regression was borderline significant (R 2 = 0.12, F(1,30) = 4.19, p = 0.05).

The PFS results according to high-risk status were borderline significant ( p = 0.05) ( Figure 4 ).

When assessing potential differences in the site of onset between clusters, we found that in KCL BrainBank, there was a borderline significant difference in the proportion of people with limb-onset SALS assigned to the clusters (X 2 = 6.05, p-value = 0.05).

Rumination was a borderline significant mediator (β = −0.04, p < 0.05, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.00]).

Age was also found to be a borderline significant factor (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.89–1.01, P = 0.05), with younger patients tending to show greater improvement in fibrosis markers and grades.

After accounting for competing mortality, there were borderline significant differences observed across the group of PGS _ FNBMD ldpred for MOF (p = 0.05), but not for HF (p = 0.71).

The relative risk for IBS at 16 years increased with increasing number of concurrent allergy-related diseases, but the linear trend for relative risk was only borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

After parental time with the child was added to model 2, its overall explanatory power had been increased to 2.2% ( p > 0.05), parental time with the child had a borderline significant impact on PCDI- comprehension ( β = 0.094, p = 0.05).

In untreated cells, limited or no HIV gag-p24 protein was detected across all cell pellets (average 0.019 ± 0.009 pg/mL, assuming a value of 0.005 pg/mL for all samples with gag-p24 below the LOD), while anti-CD3/CD28 induced an average 0.138 ± 0.070 pg/mL of viral protein, or a borderline significant 7.6-fold increase over no-drug control ( P = 0.05; Fig. 4B ).

Exercise function indicators VO2 (mL/min) showed a borderline significant increase during exercise ( MD = 0.31, 95% CI − 0.01 to 0.62, P = 0.05), while no significant improvement at rest ( MD = − 0.17, 95% CI − 0.56 to 0.21, P = 0.39).

Calibration assessment using logistic regression showed borderline significant underprediction of the true probabilities of non-arterial sample type overall (intercept = 0.31, p = 0.05), with mild underconfidence in predictions (slope 1.24, p < 0.01).