“borderline significant”

The meta-analysis demonstrated a borderline significant increase in cell viability at 24 hours compared with the control group (SMD 0.90; 95% CI−0.00 to 1.81; P =0.05) (I2 50.26%; P =0.11).

This study found that patients with CeD, younger-onset diabetes, MS, asthma, and SLE were at higher risk of ALS, and the rate ratio for UC was borderline significant ( P = 0.05), and no significant difference was found for RA, psoriasis and CD.

To broaden our search, we also decided to include and describe results with p values that were borderline significant, i.e. 0.10 > p > 0.05.

Lastly, all fixed effects that proved at least borderline significant (p ≤ 0.05) were incorporated into a final LMM for FEV 1s and VC.

Rigidity demonstrated a borderline significant improvement (ES: 0.62; p = 0.050), whereas bradykinesia showed no significant improvement (ES: 0.26; p = 0.416).

When histotype was stratified by tumour stage, Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed a borderline significant difference in survival between patients with homologous and heterologous histotypes (log-rank p = 0.050).

After adjustment for baseline covariate differences, the least square mean change (standard error [SE]) in DSI was borderline significant in the incremental group (− 9.7 [4.8], P = 0.05) and it remained strongly significant in the conventional group (− 13.8 [5.0], P = 0.009).

(2018) [ 19 ] in China reported a borderline significant association between lower annual household income and root caries in the 35–44-year-old age group (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93–1.00, p = 0.05).

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.

An unexpected, but important finding was a borderline significant ( p = 0.05) excess mortality (all-cause death 2.0% in prolonged DAPT vs. 1.5% in placebo-treated patients) due to more non-cardiovascular deaths [ 25 , 26 ].

The only nonsignificant difference in OS was among patients with stage IIIC disease (P=0.050, borderline significant).

Additionally, the age-standardised 10-year mean risk for non-Sami and Sami men was borderline significant (9.5 vs. 9.8; p =0.05).

We observed a borderline significant increased risk for kidney disease (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49, P = 0.05).

The association at lag 4 days was stronger for NSTEMI (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15–1.56) than for STEMI (OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.93–1.27), with borderline significant difference in effect estimates ( p ‐value = 0.05; Table 3 ).

However, when patients were stratified according to genetic testing positivity, those with any of the studied mutations did not show any correlation between LDL-C and other variables, while for those without a mutation, there was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between LDL-C and the clinical point score (R = 0.554, p = 0.01), as well as a borderline significant, moderate correlation between LDL-C and body fat (R = 0.441, p = 0.05).

Kruskal-Wallis testing showed a borderline significant difference (p = 0.05) among the iris reflectances for the iris colors.

Lastly, thrombocytopenia risk was non-significant for cabazitaxel versus other taxanes (RR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.76–2.83; I 2 = 0%) but borderline significant for C25 versus C20 (RR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.00–2.89; p = 0.05) (Fig. 9 ).

Metastasis status also showed a borderline significant association with NLR levels (p = 0.050), with a higher proportion of metastatic cases observed in the high NLR group.

All the probabilities are below the 50% value of equipoise, illustrating that borderline significant result with p ≈ 0.05 do not provide sufficient evidence to justify an FPR value of 5%.

The cascade message group had higher visit attendance than the single reminder group, although the difference was borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

Examining the RG and FG separately, the RG showed a significant 3.0-fold CK increase until week 3 ( p = 0.010), whereas the FG demonstrated only borderline significant changes by the factor 1.5 during the first week ( p = 0.05), peaking at 72 h after WB-EMS ( p = 0.048; r = 0.64).

The difference for SF-36 physical functioning was borderline significant (−4.10; p = 0.05) (Table 4 ).

There were also borderline significant differences between communities (adjusted r 2 = 0.02; p = 0.05).

After adjustment, the associations between FTO and baseline BMI remained borderline significant ( p = 0.050).

In chronic patients (7 trials, N = 194), the MD was 2.20 points (95% CI -0.01 to 4.40), an effect that was borderline significant ( p = 0.05), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).