“borderline significant”

In contrast, a single study reported a borderline significant improvement in symptoms in their placebo group in comparison to the pioglitazone group [ 26 ].

Therefore, borderline significant findings should be interpreted with caution.

Findings were borderline significant in the fusiform and anterior cingulate, but not the hippocampus.

When the interview was restricted to first degree relatives the risk decreased to a borderline significant OR of 1.34 (95%CI: 0.92–1.93).

However, in a meta-analysis of nine RCTs, astaxanthin showed only a borderline significant antioxidant effect between the control and intervention groups, with a malondialdehyde (MDA)-lowering effect for lipid peroxidation [ 149 ].

Deployment without combat exposure was associated with a lower risk of diabetes in unadjusted analyses compared with nondeployment, but this association was only borderline significant after adjustment for known diabetes risk factors ( Table 2 ).

Here, only log 2 (wb TMV) showed a borderline significant association with prognosis ( Table 5 ). 3.3.3.

Although this result was borderline significant in our cohort, based on the hazard ratio and confidence intervals it appeared to be a potentially relevant prognostic marker [ 21 ].

There was also a borderline significant association between inflammation and PFCs, although PFCs failed to show any impact on ESA response.

Significant predictors included prognostic risk of chronicity (Start Back) (MC [CI] high/low -0.6[-1.4,0.3]; MC [CI] medium/low –0.4[-1.1, 0.3]), age (for an increase of 10 years, 0.2[0.0,0.4]), sex was borderline significant (95% CI is -0.99 to 0.05) and baseline disability (Oswestry Disability index- increase of 20 units (-0.5[-0.9, -0.1]).

In the multivariable model including patients with HER2 + ABC, the following variables had a significant (≤ 0.05) or borderline significant (≤ 0.10) impact on OS: age at ABC diagnosis (hazard ratio per year 1.01, 95% CI 1.01–1.02), WHO performance status ≥ 2 (hazard ratio 2.29, 95% CI 1.58–3.32), WHO performance status unknown (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.27–2.05), multiple initial metastatic sites (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% CI 1.25–2.25), and MFI 3–23 months (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.12–2.19) (Table 2 ).

Younger age as a prognostic factor did show a trend towards improved local and regional control which did not reach statistical significance (borderline significant p values).

Borderline significant reductions were demonstrated for preterm birth and SGA.

The p -value for NSVT (0.087) between G+ and G− groups was borderline significant; it is not clear whether the NSVT cases reflect a subclinical phenotype in G+ individuals or simply fall within the background prevalence in the general population.

Borderline significant differences were found in the research of rs2236947A/C.

Meta-analysis on four prospective studies including 7475 people showed a modest decrease in fracture risk of 4% per 50 pmol/L increase in vitamin B 12 levels, which was borderline significant (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.00).

The concordance between the models was also low, and most findings were borderline significant.

In multivariate analysis, HER2 + (versus HER2 - ) status was associated with poor BC-SS for non-T4 patient cases (hazards ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28) and had a borderline significant association with improved BC-SS for IBC (hazards ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.68 to 0.99).

Discussion The main results of our in-vitro investigations are that, in HAEC, TLR4 antagonism with eritoran: 1) inhibits LPS-induced mRNA expression of the inflammatory cytokines IL-6, IL-8, TNFα, and CCL-2, and of the adhesion molecules VCAM and ICAM; 2) inhibits ox-PAPC-induced mRNA expression of IL-8 and of IL-6, albeit to a borderline significant level; and 3) reduces LPS-induced phosphorylation of NF-κB p65 subunit and IκB-α.

The number of risk factors per patient exerted a borderline significant effect on the study benefit ( P interaction = 0.051), with a higher number of risk factors connected to a higher study benefit.

p Values <0.05 were considered significant; p values ≥0.05 and <0.10 were considered borderline significant.

Coefficients with p -values of between 5% and 10% were denoted borderline significant.

However, the difference during follow-up was borderline significant as often as it was borderline insignificant, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.

A P value of < 0.05 for a two-sided test was considered statistically significant, whereas a P value of 0.05 to 0.10 was described as borderline significant.

For “genus”, test for Mean species diversity between the three cities was borderline significant.