“borderline significance”

9.7%; p = 0.007) but with borderline significance in the HR-negative subgroup (15.2% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.160).

3 A, OS ( P = 0.001) rates were significantly higher in patients with benign histopathology compared to those with malign pathology, while there was a borderline significance ( P = 0.16) for patients with mediastinal lymph node SUV max ≤ 6.4 and those with SUV max > 6.4 ( Fig. 3 B).

Both survival analyses displayed borderline significance ( p = 0.166, p = 0.090). 3.4.

Further investigation revealed borderline significance between polar/orbital PFC and Normal Controls ( U = 116.00, p = .17, exact p = .016, r = .381 (Bonferroni corrected alpha < .017), a trend between Parietal and Normal Controls ( U = 141.50, p = .060, exact p = .062, r = .298), and no significant difference between polar/orbital PFC and Parietal patients ( U = 125.50, p = .676, exact p = .709, r = .073).

The same trend was also seen for the HT-29 UCE_11311 KO and UCE_2272 KO groups versus the corresponding WT controls but only with borderline significance (tumor volume: P = 0.17 and P = 0.08, respectively) ( Fig. 5C ).

Borderline significance (0.05 < P < 0.18) was found between one CSS and mental score, both one and ≥ 2 CSS diagnoses and total scores (mental score, one CSS, β = − 0.110, P = 0.163, ≥ 2 CSSs, β = − 0.073, P = 0.356; total score, one CSS, β = − 0.105, P = 0.177, ≥ 2 CSSs, β = − 0.122, P = 0.142).

Notably, the expression of Her2 and P53 showed borderline significance in RFS (P =0.19 and P =0.12, respectively).

Notably, the customized ST group exhibited greater alpha power enhancement relative to controls (SMD=0.40, 95% CI: [-0.12, 0.91], P=0.13), indicating potential therapeutic superiority despite borderline significance (I=39%, P=0.19).

In the first multivariate regression model for respiratory-related hospitalization risk ( Table 5 ), the adjusted CAT score based on weightings developed from focus group 1 (respiratory nurses) showed borderline significance controlling for other variables with univariate significance p = 0.2 or below.

Of the LLIF parameters measured, factors associated with at least a borderline significance ( P < .2) in a univariate regression analysis were included in a multivariate regression analysis.

The interaction term between ERCC1 expression and adjuvant chemotherapy showed borderline significance for disease-free survival (P = 0.20).

Variables with borderline significance ( p <0.2) on the univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analyses, p <0.05 were considered statistically significance in the multivariate analysis ( 20 ).

Variables with borderline significance ( p < 0.2) on the univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate regression analyses.

Other variables with borderline significance ( p < 0.2), such as BSA-indexed left ventricular volume or emphysema ratio, did not consistently improve model performance when included, or showed multicollinearity with already selected parameters.

In the univariate analysis, MMAC, heavier weight (weighted 45 kg or heavier) and more CD34+ cells were associated with higher platelet engraftment rate with borderline significance ( p < 0.2) ( p = 0.01, p = 0.19 and p = 0.18, separately).

The age, gender, existence of underlying conditions for NeP, and potential confounding factors with borderline significance (p<0.20) were included.

The covariated factors with a borderline significance ( p < 0.2) were included in multivariate analysis, which was performed with a Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Factors with at least borderline significance ( p < 0.20) according to the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.

Borderline significance was obtained for univariate analysis of tooth type, radiographic depth, carious tissue, and preoperative sensitivity (Table 4 ; p < 0.200).

In order to analyze the effects of factors associated with at least borderline significance (p<0.20) in the univariate analysis on the outcomes of OS, EFS, and NRM, they were entered via backwards selection into a Cox proportional hazards model, which was assessed by means of residual (Schoenfeld and Martingale) analysis.

However, this finding reached only borderline significance ( p = 0.2315).

The BMI×Weight loss interaction terms were tested for OS, and a borderline significance was identified for the differential impact of weight loss between underweight and overweight/obese patients (normal weight×HWL vs underweight×LWL, P = 0.239; overweight/obese×HWL vs underweight×LWL, P = 0.054; Table S1 ).

Lobectomy demonstrated borderline significance compared with segmentectomy (OR 1.30, p = 0.24). 3.4.

Notably, the dichotomized LDH (HR 1.993, 95% CI: 0.958–4.149; P=0.065 ) and mFI-5 (HR 1.788, 95% CI: 0.958–3.338; P=0.068 ) showed borderline significance, and Age ≥75 (HR 1.437, 95% CI: 0.754–2.739; P=0.270 ) lost statistical significance.

Notably, pain (any grade; RR = 3.94, P < 0.00001) and nausea/vomiting (any grade; RR = 2.28, P < 0.0001) were significantly more common in the TACE + TKIs + ICIs group, while decreased appetite and abnormal liver function showed higher heterogeneity (I 2 > 50%) and borderline significance ( P = 0.28 and P = 0.06, respectively).