Barely Significant

Excerpts

3,685 sentences · 1 filter applied

nominally significantp = 0.0030.1× alphagold
Nominally significant adverse associations were observed in eight strata on unadjusted testing: an age below the cohort median of 72 years (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.28–3.38; p = 0.003), an age of 72 years or older (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.33–2.96; p < 0.001), female sex (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.18–4.16; p = 0.013), male sex (HR 1.91, 95%
highly significantp = 0.0030.1× alphaqualifiedgold
Further Kaplan–Meier analysis stratified by tumour stage revealed a highly significant difference in survival based on tumour size (log-rank p = 0.003), with patients having tumours > 4 cm experiencing markedly poorer survival, particularly in Stage III–IV disease, where their median survival was only 26 months, compared to those with tumours ≤ 4 cm, whose median survival was not reached.
highly significantp -values < 0.0050.1× alphaqualifiedgold
Differences were defined as ‘not significant’ in cases with p -values > 0.1, as ‘tendentially significant’ (significant *) with p -values between 0.1 and 0.05, as ‘significant’ (significant **) with p -values between 0.05 and 0.005 and as ‘highly significant’ (significant ***) with p -values < 0.005.
highly significantp = 0.0050.1× alphaqualifiedgold
A categorization by surgical resection of liver metastases demonstrated a highly significant difference ( p = 0.005) in OS between those patients who underwent surgical resection (median OS 32.8 months; 95% CI, 21.42–44.18; n = 11) and those who did not (median OS 12.20 months; 95% CI; 5.58–18.82, n = 31) ( Figure 3 A).
highly significantp -values ≤ 0.0050.1× alphaqualifiedgold
A p -value > 0.05 indicated that the data followed a normal distribution and justified the use of t -tests: Differences were considered as “highly significant” in cases with p -values ≤ 0.005, as “significant” with p -values ≤ 0.05, and as “borderline significant” with p -values between 0.05 and 0.10.