Barely Significant

Excerpts

3,862 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp < 0.204.0× alphagold
The variables identified as significantly associated with outcome variables ( p < 0.05), that were marginally significant ( p < 0.20, t ) in the univariate analysis, or that are considered clinically relevant were selected for inclusion in the Cox regression model, which analyzed parameters associated with a loss in kidney graft function equal to at least 10% of the eGFR over the follow-up period of the 148 patients (median duration of follow-up: 13.3 months, 25–75th percentile: 12.1–15.1 months post-evaluation).
a decreasing trendP = 0.408.0× alphagold
The spleen index was elevated (SMD = 0.69; 95% CI [0.08, 1.29]; P = 0.03), IL-2 levels were increased (SMD = 1.71; 95% CI [0.88, 2.55]; P < 0.0001), IFN-γ levels were elevated (SMD = 1.14; 95% CI [0.72, 1.56]; P < 0.00001), while IL-6 levels showed a decreasing trend (SMD = -0.73; 95% CI [-2.42, 0.96]; P = 0.40), and TNF-α levels were elevated (SMD = 0.24; 95% CI [-0.81, 1.28]; P = 0.66).
a decreasing trendp = 0.418.2× alphagold
coli showed a significant effect ( p < 0.01) on body temperature, while the administration of mixed LAB strains ( p = 0.07) showed a decreasing trend in the body temperature, and the interaction between mixed LAB strains and E. coli showed no significant effect ( p = 0.41) on the body temperature in mice.
highly significantP = 4.24×10 - 18.5× alphaqualifiedgold
3.8 Common genetic architecture and molecular mechanisms of metabolic syndrome and gout LDSC analysis revealed highly significant positive genetic correlation between metabolic syndrome and gout at the genome-wide level (rg=0.321, P = 4.24×10 - 1 5 ), indicating that the two diseases share a large number of identical genetic risk variants, providing a genetic explanation for their comorbidity.
showed a trendp = 0.489.6× alpha
Although no statistically significant effects were reached, the use of vitamin D supplementation showed a trend for reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–1.71, p = 0.48] compared with the control group, with even stronger effects, when vitamin D was administered repeatedly (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.1–1.14).