Barely Significant
← all phrases

reached borderline significance

92 sentences · 92 papers · 408 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.0509

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

In the literature

reached borderline significanceP = 0.0581.2× alphagold
Sex, age, ASA classification were independent risk factors for DFS (HR 1.563, 95% CI 1.021–2.394, P = 0.040; HR 1.034, 95% CI 1.015–1.052, P < 0.001; HR 2.228, 95% CI 1.386–3.584, P < 0.001, respectively), and the prognostic effect of PNI on DFS reached borderline significance (HR 1.583, 95% CI 0.985–2.545, P = 0.058) (Table 3 ).
reached borderline significancep = .0661.3× alphagold
The analyses of the BIS subscales showed that this differential effect was particularly attributable to motor impulsivity (i.e., acting without thinking), where the group*time interaction reached borderline significance ( p = .066, see also Table S4 in Supplement) and post hoc tests indicated a highly significant improvement in the active group ( p = .005) but no significant change in the sham group ( p = .58).
reached borderline significanceP = 0.0681.4× alphagold
The prognosis analysis in GSE39582 (see Supplementary Table 4 for baseline characteristics) revealed that the APX3330-resolution score were significantly associated with an increased risk of recurrence in the univariate Cox regression (HR = 1.148, 95% CI: 1.054–2.081, P = 0.024) but only reached borderline significance after adjusted for other clinical factors (HR = 1.388, 95% CI: 0.976–1.974, P = 0.068) (Fig. 6 C-D).
reached borderline significancep = 0.0691.4× alphagold
4 ), and as indicated, despite all point-estimates favoring WPM, only the VAS score for “How hungry do you feel?” for the lunch meal was significantly lower with WPM by the conventional p < 0.05, while several reached borderline significance, e.g., during breakfast (Feeling of fullness (p = 0.069) and amount you think you could eat (p = 0.056)) and lunch (satisfaction (p = 0.054), desire to eat (p = 0.084), CAC score (p = 0.054)).
reached borderline significanceP = .0711.4× alphagold
The infiltration level of CD8 + lymphocytes was significantly higher in the dual therapy group than those in other 3 groups (dual therapy vs control, 12.88% ± 7.89% vs 1.36% ± 0.93%, P = .008; dual therapy vs PD-1, 12.88% ± 7.89% vs 1.90% ± 1.03%, P = .010; dual therapy vs Reparixin, 12.88% ± 7.89% vs 3.01% ± 0.87%, P = .017) ( Figure 12 J ) The infiltration of CD8 + /PD-L1 + cytotoxic lymphocytes was also higher in the dual therapy group but just reached borderline significance (dual therapy vs control, 8.43% ± 8.68% vs 0.90% ± 0.90%, P = .071; dual therapy vs PD-1, 8.43% ± 8.68% vs 1.46% ± 0.84%, P = .090; dual therapy vs Reparixin, 8.43% ± 8.68% vs 2.39% ± 1.20%, P = .133) ( Figure 11 D ).