Barely Significant
← all phrases

“borderline significance”

7,018 sentences · 7,018 papers · 11,572 search hits before verification

In the literature

Presence of pars planitis (odds ratio 4.4, 95% confidence interval 1.4–13.9, and p = 0.012) and high myopia (spherical equivalent less than −6 diopters or axial length longer than 26 mm, odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1–10.9, and p = 0.038) were significant factors associated with primary anatomical failure and pseudophakia (odds ratio 3.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9–9.7, and p = 0.070) showed borderline significance ( Table 3 ). 4.
There was a lack of participants and non-participants to compare according to the main sociodemographic and clinical characteristics that could result in any type of bias, a lack of baseline clinical characteristics that could indicate any possible sitagliptin residual effect before the beginning of a cross-over design and a sample size since borderline significance in some comparisons could be attributed in part to the relatively small number of participants.
5 ) A prospective online survey conducted 12 months after recovery found that female sex showed borderline significance for cognitive impairment risk. 38 ) The Atahualpa cohort study from Ecuador reported no female predominance in reduced cognitive performance at 6 months in individuals recovering from mild symptomatic COVID-19 infection. 40 ) The reason why female sex emerged as a negative factor in our study may be because men tend to have more severe COVID-19 than women. 41 ) At the beginning of the study, individuals experiencing more severe conditions may not have been included because they failed to meet the inclusion criteria.
We segregated them into the minimal change disease / focal segmental glomerulosclerosis groups and observed that the ACE ‘D’ allele was identified with borderline significance in cases of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and the ‘I’ allele was assessed as having very weak association in cases of minimal change disease. ‘II’ genotype was weakly associated with minimal change disease.
to <10 years’ group had an adjusted HR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.04, 2.53, p =0.033) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.02, 2.27, p =0.040) for CKD and cardiovascular–kidney disease, respectively, while the ‘top-20%-wPRS plus baseline DD<5 years’ group had an adjusted HR of 1.63 (95% CI 0.93, 2.87, p =0.089) for CVD, with borderline significance.