“borderline significant”

In multivariate analysis, SULT1E1 rs3736599 remained significantly associated (OR = 2.87; 95% CI = 1.22–6.91; p = 0.016), while SULT1A2*2 showed a borderline significant effect with gynecological symptoms (OR = 2.22; 95% CI = 1.01–5.05; p = 0.050).

The difference in neuron/neurotransmission score between the Sham and NRL groups was borderline significant (−0.4 ± 1.5 vs −4.0 ± 0.9, p = 0.050).

Age was a borderline significant predictor ( p = 0.05).

Further, FR-QoL-29 scores were significantly positively correlated, though weakly, with serum albumin levels (Spearman’s rank, n=279, r s =0.13, p=0.03) and a borderline significant inverse correlation was found between FR-QoL-29 scores and age (Spearman’s rank, n=301, r s =−0.11, p=0.05) ( online supplemental figures 7 and 8 ).

However, the sex interaction P -values were only borderline significant ( P = 0.05–0.11) due to lack of statistical power, except for AF-PRS post-PCI ( P = 0.003).

The foveal SRVD demonstrated a borderline significant reduction in HM eyes (14.9 ± 7.1% vs. 17.9 ± 7.4%; p = 0.05), while more pronounced decreases were observed in both the parafovea (43.2 ± 6.4% vs. 48.1 ± 5.6%; p < 0.01) and perifovea (45.0 ± 5.0% vs. 48.1 ± 4.2%; p < 0.01) regions ( Figure 3 ).

Our analysis showed that COT was associated with a borderline significant reduction in 30-day mortality compared with ST (RR = 0.61; 95% CI: [0.37–1.00], P = 0.05).

When adjusted for age and the number of comorbidities, the continuous cHIS score showed a borderline significant association with ICU mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.00–2.09, P = 0.050).

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).

27.4 cm) than in the impaired development group, but this difference was only borderline significant ( P= 0.05) in this cohort.

There is a borderline significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 (U = −10.00, p = 0.05).

In contrast, HbA1c level was supported by moderate-certainty evidence, with a borderline significant reduction (MD: −0.17; p = 0.05) and acceptable heterogeneity (I 2 = 44%).

A borderline significant difference in survival was observed for patients with localised cancer stage ( p = 0.05).

Longer episode duration was associated with a small borderline significant reduction in treatment effectiveness (β = 0.24, p = 0.05), irrespective of treatment protocol (episode duration × Treatment: β = −0.23, p = 0.31); no difference was observed between patients with MDD vs.

The main result for the primary outcome is borderline significant (RR=0.85 [0.72-1.00], p=0.05), it is difficult to interpret this result.

ADAE prediction generalizability Overall, there was no significant association between the ADAE prediction performance and the patient age ( p = 0.104), skin type ( p = 0.587; excluding unknown skin types, and skin types V + VI due to low sample size (<25)), or lesion location domain ( p = 0.233; excluding lesions in unknown locations, and oral/genital lesions due to low sample size (<25)), the technical domain (i.e., camera setup; p = 0.068) or the dermatologists’ diagnostic confidence score, although borderline significant ( p = 0.050).

Among baseline respiratory variables, driving pressure was slightly higher in the supine group (22 ± 5 cmH 2 O) compared to the prone group (18 ± 3 cmH 2 O), showing a borderline significant difference (p = 0.05).

Multiple logistic regression analysis of the remaining predictors, including anti-dsDNA, C4, ESR, and clinically detected synovitis, showed clinically detected synovitis had the most significant association with and the highest odds of US-detected inflammatory arthritis in the final model (aOR = 142.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.55–3093.96; p = 0.002), as well as a borderline significant association with ESR levels (aOR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.00–1.08; p = 0.05).

The multivariate analysis confirmed the effect of EGFR mutation and advanced nodal stage, which were strongly associated with brain metastases development, while age was borderline significant (p = 0.05).

However, students’ satisfaction with their future income exhibited a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.05), with a higher proportion of first-year students reporting dissatisfaction (40.0% vs. 23.2% in sixth-year students).

The effects of smoking on complications were similar in PTNBs performed using the core needle biopsy technique, but the association between smoking history and hemoptysis was borderline significant (current smoking, p = 0.05; heavy smoking, p = 0.06; Table S5 ).

The results indicated a borderline significant association between RA and the occurrence of MI within six months, with a pooled RR of 1.31 (95% CI 1.00–1.72, p = 0.05), along with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 22.3%, p = 0.26).

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.

Similar observations were demonstrated in the CON group, with a borderline significant ( p = 0.05) reduction in SBP of −1.4 mmHg [−2.8;0.0] and a significant ( p = 0.03) reduction in DBP of −1.5 mmHg [−2.8;−0.1], resulting in a reduction ( p = 0.01) in MAP of −1.5 mmHg [−2.6;−0.3].

However, the Kruskal–Wallis test showed no statistically significant relationship between smartphone-holding postures and discomfort in most hand regions, except for Area B of the left hand, which showed a borderline significant relationship ( p = 0.05) (Table 3 ).