“borderline significance”

A history of smoking > 20 pack-years predicted a 7.2 μg/g/year increase in tibia lead with borderline significance ( p < 0.10).

The differences in the effect of simvastatin on total cholesterol and LDL-C between the patients with and without ezetimibe showed borderline significance (p=0.10 and p=0.055, respectively).

Values with borderline significance ( p < 0.10) were subjected to multiple regression analyses with backward selection.

Due to our small sample size, variables that had statistically significant or borderline significance ( P < 0.10) univariate associations with adherence were included in the multivariate analysis to examine the independent predictors of adherence to the exercise program.

Significance was set at p < 0.050, with borderline significance considered for 0.050 < p < 0.100.

Variables with a significance level of P < .05 or a borderline significance ( P < .10) in the univariate analysis were included in the multiple binary logistic regression analysis using the enter method.

Only the factors that showed statistical significance or borderline significance ( P <0.1) in the univariate analysis were added stepwise to the multivariate analysis.

Based on month of birth, the Edwards' test showed significant sinusoidal variation for three of the four selected groups (astrocytoma, P =0.05; astrocytoma and ependymoma, P =0.05; other astrocytoma and ependymoma, P =0.03) and borderline significance for ependymoma ( P =0.10) and other astrocytoma ( P =0.06).

The measurement results were interpreted as p < 0.001 as very high statistical significance, 0.001 ≤ p < 0.01 as high statistical significance, 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05 as statistically significant, 0.05 ≤ p < 0.10 as borderline significance, and p > 0.10 as no statistically significant difference. 3.

Statistical significance was defined as a P value <.05; nonsignificant trend or borderline significance were defined as a P value <.1.

Because the sample size is small, associations with borderline significance (0.5 < p < 0.10) are also reported.

On the other hand, having a history of diabetes was a significant risk factor, and having a history of hypertension was found to be associated with a borderline significance level (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10), with an increased risk of carotid atherosclerosis in the patient group of the LMN cohort.

Borderline significance as indicator of a trend was considered for 0.05<p<0.10.

Post-hoc analysis by geographic region of surgeons was done only for fracture types, neurological status, and modifiers which had an observed borderline significance ( P ≤ 0.10) upon Kruskal-Wallis testing.

For the multivariate model, covariates were selected a priori based on the following criteria: T-tube placement was included as the primary exposure of interest; narrow bile duct diameter was included as a key clinical confounder given its known association with both T-tube use and anastomotic stricture risk; and age was included based on borderline significance in univariate analysis ( p < 0.10).

All independent variables that showed differences of more than borderline significance ( p <0.1) for NAFLD were entered in a multivariate logistic regression model in order to determine the independent association with NAFLD.

While in postmenopausal women, there was an inverse association between aMT6s level and BC risk with a borderline significance (RR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75–1.02, Z = 1.67, P = 0.10) based on data from 4 studies 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 (Fig. 3 ).

Factors associated with at least borderline significance ( p ≤ 0.10) in the univariate analysis, CMV‐react, and acute GVHD were subjected to a multivariate analysis using a backward stepwise covariate selection.

Similar results were obtained in a sensitivity analysis by using a Poisson model, although with a borderline significance for the interview grade ( p -value = 0.101 and relative risk = 4.0).

The results of a logistic regression analysis, entering the values of sex, age, number of dental units, and perception of the financial loss, reveal that males claim a greater perception of loss than females (borderline significance), the older ones more than the young people, and those who have over three dental units more than the others, gender, p = 0.102 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.930–2.220); age, p = 0.0001 (95% CI: 1.542–2.735); number of dental chairs p = 0.005 (95% CI: 1.106–1.760).

As shown in Table S8 , an independent samples t -test found that the β 1 coefficients in the SD group were lower than those in the HC group, and the difference for ‘liking’ approached borderline significance (‘wanting’: t (58) = −1.659, p = 0.103, Cohen’s d = −0.428; ‘liking’: t (58) = −1.948, p = 0.056, Cohen’s d = −0.503), which was directionally consistent with the ANOVA pattern but did not provide definitive evidence for group differences in adaptation slopes.

In addition, a large difference of OS with borderline significance was uncovered between the PD-L1 + / CD8A methyl-high and the PD-L1 + / CD8A methyl-low groups (HR = 4.96, 95% CI 0.59–41.75, P = 0.104, Fig. 6 E), indicating the differed prognostic effects of the PD-L1 elicited by immune attack and the one induced by the oncogenic pathway.

Significant differences between the groups were found, but only borderline significance ( P = 0.1050).

AHNAK was significantly different when comparing Stage A to the control group ( p = 0.0041) and showed borderline significance in Stage B ( p = 0.1069).

As shown in Figure 2 E, the patients in high score group suffered shorter survival than patients in low score group with borderline significance (P = 0.108).