Barely Significant
← all phrases

“borderline significant”

11,410 sentences · 11,410 papers · 14,072 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

After mutual adjustment, only GRP per capita was found to have a significant association with the health outcomes: there was a borderline significant association between GRP per capita and lower odds of depression symptoms, and a significant association between GRP per capita and lower odds of IADL impairment (Model 6). 3.3.
In the DAS28-remission-Modified dataset (trials categorized as “DMARD-naïve” were omitted in the modified datasets), this trial eligibility criterion showed significant interaction among subgroups and it was borderline significant in the ACR20-Modified dataset.
A borderline significant inverse trend was detected between increasing quartiles of cumulative serum PFOA and risk of currently treated asthma in unlagged analyses (OR for top versus bottom quartile = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.16, 1.69, P trend = 0.27 for continuous log PFOA, P trend = 0.05 for categorical PFOA), and no significant association was detected in analyses with a 10-year lag (OR for top versus bottom quartile = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.09, 2.84, P trend = 0.53 for continuous log PFOA, P trend = 0.17 for categorical PFOA).
According to the results of multiple logistic regression, a borderline significant relationship was observed between children’s underlying health status and parental attitudes toward vaccination. the odds ratio comparing the vaccination unacceptance between parents of children with underlying disease to children without underlying disease was approximately 1.77 (95% CI: (0.93, 3.42), P -value = 0.07) indicating that parents of children with underlying disease exhibited more unaccepting attitudes toward vaccination.
In these models, psychological distress [Model 5: OR (95% CI) = 1.11 (1.02–1.21)] and physical activity [Model 6: OR (95% CI) = 0.85 (0.77–0.94)] were the only significant covariates, with borderline significant estimates for fruit consumption [Model 6: OR (95% CI) = 0.90 (0.81–1.01)] and socioeconomic disadvantage [Model 7: OR (95% CI) = 1.39 (0.99–1.96)].