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 adding estimated glomerular filtration rate (according to Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) and the homeostasis model assessment of estimated insulin resistance (as a marker of insulin resistance) on top of all other covariates, the significant associations between Pro-NT and mortality outcomes remained significant, apart from deaths due to mental and behavioral diseases and unspecific diseases, the latter of which were borderline significant, as listed in Supplementary Table 3 ( 23 ).
For vitamin D, a borderline significant positive association was observed in the Polish population across tertiles of E-NRF7.3 score, in all adjustment models [mean value (95%CI) 58.0 (51.7−64.3) in the highest tertile vs. 52.6 (46.8−58.5) in the lowest tertile, p = 0.06], but not per one unit increase in E-NRF7.3 score (β = 0.177, p = 0.42 in fully adjusted model).
Except for the correlation between triceps’ skinfold SDS and protein intake which showed a borderline significant correlation when calculating Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and which no longer reaches statistical significance with sex as a control variable, correction for sex did not lead to relevant changes (see Supplementary Materials Tables S1 and S2 ). 3.5.
10 As with English literacy, we again see indication of an unexpected positive effect of childbearing on local language literacy for those with less than grade 6 attainment in both the BALIKA and AGEP rural samples, but it is not significant in the BALIKA sample and is only borderline significant in the AGEP rural sample. 11 Given lower levels of literacy in Nyanja (the language of the first sentence in the local language assessment) compared with the local language in the other two studies, we ran the AGEP local language models using only the second sentence, which was in the language of each respondent’s choosing.
Positive associations were observed with summary RRs of 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.34, I 2 =0%, P heterogeneity =0.82) for cantaloupe, 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.27, I 2 =66.4%, P heterogeneity =0.007) for fruit drinks, and borderline significant positive associations were observed with summary RRs of 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.16, I 2 =68.7%, P heterogeneity =0.002) for fruit juice and 1.05 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.11, I 2 =0%, P heterogeneity =0.72) for watermelon.