OS showed a borderline significant association with IGKC expression in Kaplan Meier analysis in ER positive carcinomas (Log-rank test: P = 0.050; Fig. 3D ).
← all phrases
“borderline significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
The relationship with optimistic/calm personality was borderline significant (p=0.050).
Treatment protocols revealed a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.05).
The OR at NPAR ≥ 0.92 remains at the borderline significant level ( P = 0.050), but the overall analysis does not support the existence of a threshold effect.
There were borderline significant associations for SBP GRS ( β = −0.03, P = 0.05) and triglycerides GRS ( β = 0.03, P = 0.05), but none of these remained in sensitivity analyses excluding individuals with blood pressure-lowering treatment and lipid-lowering treatment, respectively.
An allele model showed a borderline significant increase in leukemia risk (OR = 1.13, 95%CI [1.00–1.27], P = 0.05).
Evaluation of systemic markers of inflammation (hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-8 and fibrinogen) only revealed a borderline significant decrease in plasma hs-CRP concentration after doxycycline treatment (−0.51 μg/ml, P =0.050; Table 3 ).
For NEUTs, a borderline significant decrease was observed between points II and III ( p = 0.05).
Additionally, there was a borderline significant correlation between PKM2 expression and mucinous differentiation (P = 0.05).
116.7, p = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.84, CI: 0.31, 1.36); and emotional well‐being, which is borderline significant (mean = 17.8 vs. 15.5, p = 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.5, CI: −0.01, 1.0).
In our review, tight glycaemic control demonstrated a borderline significant reduction in the incidence of AF following cardiac surgery (p = 0.05), although four of the five RCTs reported fewer AF episodes in their tight control group when compared to their normal glucose control group.
Based on the multiple logistic regression analsis of whole 249 patients, the hfPWV, but not the mbaPWV, was a significant risk factor (OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.001–1.008; p = 0.02) and waist circumference was a borderline significant risk factor (OR, 1.063; 95% CI, 1.000–1.133; p = 0.05) for adenomas (Table 2 ).
The treatment group effect remained borderline significant ( p = 0.050).
Gender shows a borderline significant association, with females having lower odds compared with males (odds ratios [OR] = 0.64, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.41–1.00, P = .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.
Age showed a borderline significant link with mortality (p=0.05), suggesting a slight risk increase with age.
Similarly, nonparametric analyses demonstrated a borderline significant effect of role, p = .05 (see Table S-1).
Body weight: There was a borderline significant difference in BW‐kg change between study arms ( P = 0.05).
In addition, while the AUC of DNI in patients with USG abnormalities was borderline significant ( P = 0.05) it was nearly comparable to that of CRP, both of which being much more significant than either the WBC count and ESR.
A borderline significant negative association with rheumatologic diseases was also observed (aOR 0.77 [95% CI 0.59–1.00]; p = 0.05).
Apart from a borderline significant association between high infiltration of CD3 + T cells and a longer OS in univariable analysis ( p = 0.050), there were no significant associations between any of the other immune cell subsets or the number of TLLSs with OS (Table S8 ).
At 12 months, there was a borderline significant increase in fT4 levels compared to baseline (p=0.05), but values remained within normal limits (0.8–1.8 ng/dL).
An interaction between HNF1A G319S and baseline pack-years was borderline significant (p = 0.05).
The test for subgroup differences was borderline significant ( p = 0.05), suggesting that treatment effects may vary according to disease severity ( Figure S9 ).
There was a borderline significant relationship between higher levels of donor INS ‐cfDNA and lower islet yield [−0.38 (0.18), p = .050] (Table 2 ).