“borderline significant”

Although only borderline significant ( p = 0.05), respondents working in facilities in Sub-district B were 3.024 times more likely to have good TB infection control practices than respondents working in Sub-district A (Table 5 ).

Because we observed significant or borderline significant interactions between total protein intake and sex on BF% ( p = 0.05), insulin ( p = 0.01), C-peptide ( p = 0.03), HDL-C ( p = 0.08), triglycerides ( p < 0.01), and the cardiometabolic score ( p = 0.07), we also performed all analyses in boy and girls separately (Table 2 ).

A borderline significant positive association between MLR and AST was observed in the combined cohort (r = 0.188, p = 0.050).

The results from the self-location task ( figure 6 b ), in which participants rated their sense of self-location in the illusory body in the testing room (location A) versus the illusory body in the corridor (location B) versus the real body location (location C), showed that participants in SS compared with AA rated their self-location slightly stronger (borderline significant) in location A (5.3 versus 3.9, Z = −1.99, p = 0.050) but there were no differences for location B (5.6 versus 4.8, Z = −1.09, p = 0.28) or C (4.2 versus 4.6, Z = −0.83, p = 0.40).

The overall NMSS score was higher for women, although borderline significant (mean difference 4.41; range -0.02-8.85; p = 0.05), and with a high heterogeneity (I 2 = 69.7%) (Fig. 2A ).

In a Cox-proportional hazard model where the cause-specific hazards were investigated ( Figure 1B ), eGFR was only borderline significant ( P = .05) for CV events.

Statistical analyses between groups A and B revealed that mean age at the diagnosis of thyroid cancer was higher in patients of group B and this difference was borderline significant (t = -1.95, p = 0.05).

Besides, nontimely initial injections (over than 2 hours) reached a borderline significant (Adjusted OR = 4.14, 95% CI: 1.00–17.18, P = 0.050).

The test for subgroup differences was borderline significant, P = 0.05, I 2 = 0%.

Figure 4 , A, confirmed a statistically significant association between maximum Pa o 2 and death (Wald χ 2 = 8.72, df = 3, P = .033) and borderline significant nonlinearity (Wald χ 2 = 5.81, df = 2, P = .05).

The parameter B was negatively associated with PFS, with a coefficient of -0.26 and a hazard ratio of 0.773, although the p-value was borderline significant (p< 0.05).

ADC presented a borderline significant discriminatory power (AUC 0.600, p = 0.05), with a significantly lower AUC compared with the SUVavg and short-axis diameter ( p < 0.01 and p = 0.03, n = 162). 3.5.

The model including ART, maternal age and height, primiparity, labor and multiple gestation was borderline significant (adjusted R 2 0.112, p = 0.05) and ART and multiparity were the only statistically significant contributors to the variance of CDKN1C levels.

Nonparametric Jonckheere-Terpstra test was used to analyze the differences in median PAI-1 serum levels between ordinal HY score groups from 1 to 4 and a borderline significant difference was found between the groups ( p = 0.05).

A borderline significant association was noted for Cit-Fibα36–50 (OR = 5.33; p = 0.05; 95% CI: 1.08–26.18).

The difference in TPO protein expression between normal tissue and cancer samples was borderline significant ( P -value = 0.05).

Among well-differentiated carcinomas, nuclear survivin was a borderline significant prognostic marker in the univariate analysis ( P = 0.05).

There was a borderline significant strain×stress interaction for sessions (F1,41 = 4.07, P = .05), a main effect of strain on errors (F1,41 = 21.86, P <.01) and correction errors (F1,41 = 27.00, P <.01) to criterion ( Figure S3A–C ).

In females, we also found a borderline significant association of higher plasma IGF1 levels with cardiovascular mortality (0.43, 0.18–1.00; p = 0.05; see Supplemental Table S2 , Model 1), but neither a significant association with cancer-related mortality (1.50, 0.45–4.93; p = 0.51; see Supplemental Table S3 , Model 1), nor with mortality from miscellaneous causes (0.43, 0.10–1.78; p = 0.24; see Supplemental Table S4 , Model 1).

The group difference in ‘stds above the surrogate’ was borderline significant, t (44) = 1.99, p = 0.05, d = 0.60, with the IB group mean being slightly higher.

The (CAG) 25+8 allele contracted at a frequency that is statistically significantly above background ( P = 0.006), while the (TAG) 25+8 contraction frequency compared to background is only borderline significant ( P = 0.05; entries 10I and J in Table 1 ).

In mydriatic imaging, sensitivity was also higher when ungradable images were excluded (92%, 87–95) compared to treating them as positive (85%, 70–93), while specificity was slightly lower (89 vs 95%), with a borderline significant difference (p = 0.05).

Regarding vascular function markers, FMD (borderline significant p = 0.050), RI, AI, and SI were independently associated with a HR below 53 bpm.

Post hoc analysis was thus undertaken in those with limiting angina (n = 1507; 13.8%) 47 which reported ivabradine to be associated with a borderline significant 24% reduction in the primary endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58–1.00]; P = 0.05) and a 42% reduction in hospitalization for MI (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37–0.92]).

For instance, the negative and borderline significant path from COMP to PU (β = -0.14, p = 0.050) challenges conventional TAM/TOE expectations.