Barely Significant
← all phrases

“borderline non-significant”

435 sentences · 435 papers · 642 search hits before verification

In the literature

borderline non-significantP = 0.0581.2× alpha
At Week 48, a baseline ADCS-IADL score indicating a more severe disease status led to an increased estimate of the probability of no decline ( P = 0.020), while an MMSE score ≤12 at baseline reduced the estimate ( P = 0.040); treatment with the 13.3 mg/24 h versus the 9.5 mg/24 h patch was borderline non-significant ( P = 0.058).
borderline non-significantp = 0.0581.2× alpha
First, the models only on blue-collar workers (n = 636) yielded similar associations between work-time compositions and sick-leave trajectories compared to the primary models, although the negative association between sitting and the trajectory with few days—increasing sick leave became borderline non-significant (OR = 0.78, 95% CIs 0.60–1.01, p = 0.058).
borderline non-significantp = 0.061.2× alpha
The meta-analysis of the in vivo studies indicated that calcium-hydroxide powder/saline promotes reparative bridge formation better than the popular commercial resin-free calcium-silicate cement Pro-Root MTA (Dentsply-Sirona), although the difference was borderline non-significant ( p = 0.06), and better than calcium-hydroxide cements ( p < 0.0001).
borderline non-significantp = 0.061.2× alpha
The model with time and the interaction intervention*time showed a borderline non-significant relationship between VR+ on the achievement of work participation on discharge: OR 1.8 (CI 1.0–3.4), p = 0.06, and a significant relationship on 6-months follow-up: OR = 1.8 (CI 1.1–2.8), p = 0.01.
borderline non-significantP = 0.0601.2× alpha
For overall IBD, the continuous LC9 score was significantly associated with reduced IBD risk in Models 1 and 2 (Model 1: HR 0.956, 95% CI 0.934–0.979, P < 0.001; Model 2: HR 0.960, 95% CI 0.937–0.983, P = 0.001), while the association in Model 3 was attenuated and borderline non-significant (HR 0.976, 95% CI 0.953–1.001, P = 0.060).
The association between sugar sweetened soda specifically and cancer rate was borderline non-significant (subdistribution hazard ratio for a 100 mL/d increase 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.23, P=0.06, total 101 257, incident cases 2193 for overall cancer; 1.10, 0.95 to 1.46, P=0.07, 79 724, 693 for breast cancer, data not tabulated), but the consumption was limited (median consumption=5.8 mL/d).