“borderline significant”

There were significant differences in AST between the Half-FLU and FLU groups ( P = .0086), and between the FLU and Arg groups ( P < .0001), and borderline significant differences between the Half-FLU and Arg groups ( P = .02).

1D ) were still borderline significant ( P = .02 and .05, respectively).

A univariate analysis revealed that FKBPL was also a significant predictor of relapse free interval (RFI) within the ER positive patient group, but it was only borderline significant within the smaller tamoxifen treated patient group (HR = 1.32 95% CI 1.05–1.65, p = 0.02 and HR = 1.23 95% CI 0.99–1.54, p = 0.06, respectively).

For binary classification of 40 external slides scanned on the GT450, the performance difference between the model and pathologists was borderline significant (P = 0.02), suggesting high model performance on this dataset.

There was a borderline significant increase in square root‐transformed corrected height percentile over time (0.11 ± 0.046 (SD) [95% CIs 0.018, 0.20]; p = 0.020).

VAT had a borderline significant association with non-HDL cholesterol; P = 0.02, r 2 = 0.15, 0.03 (0.02–0.04) mmol/l increase for each 10 cm 3 increase in VAT.

Multivariate analysis also suggests that older age groups (vs those aged 21–34, borderline significant) and participants with post-secondary education (0.67, 0.48–0.94, p = 0.021 vs secondary education as reference category) were significantly less likely, while those who lived in private housing (vs public housing) were significantly more likely (1.69, 1.13–2.51) to want antibiotics.

Spearman correlation analysis revealed that CD15 expression was significantly and negatively correlated with the proportion of NK cells among peripheral blood nucleated cells (Spearman r = -0.380, P = 0.004) and showed a borderline significant negative correlation with the percentage of NK cells relative to total lymphocytes (Spearman r = -0.304, P = 0.022).

In PWHIV, there was a borderline significant correlation between GLS and log 10 CD4 cell count [coefficient 0.79 (95% CI: 0.12, 1.45) p = 0.022]; however, this was no longer significant after adjustment for covariates (smoking, recreational drug use, fasting glucose, cholesterol, HDL, BMI, heart rate, systolic BP, diastolic BP, sex, and left ventricular mass index).

DeepAtrophy detects a difference between preclinical AD and the control group that is borderline significant ( p = 0.022, one-alternative Wilcoxon rank-sum test, uncorrected).

When the same analysis was done for each tumour stage separately, a borderline significant correlation between the 16p13.3 alteration and disease recurrence was only observed in stage II tumours (*P = 0.022) (Figures B-D in S6 File ).

Difference in age at diagnosis between patients with HPV-positive and HPV-negative cases was borderline significant (p = 0.023).

The Seahorse XF Glycolytic Rate analysis showed a significant increase in basal glycolysis and borderline significant increase in compensatory glycolysis in the A549 HERC5 KO cell line compared to A549 PAR (Fig. 6 B; basal glycolysis: p = 0.023; compensatory glycolysis: p = 0.053).

This was highly significant as a predictor of remission in the univariate model ( P =0.023), but only borderline significant ( P =0.067) in the multivariate model.

Testing copanlisib exposure variables on the RBCM for PFS in copanlisib‐treated patients only demonstrated a statistically significant, positive ER relationship for PFS for all three time‐varying copanlisib exposure estimates ( C avg,2wk : p = 0.002; C avg,4wk : p = 0.004; C avg,8wk : p = 0.002), along with a borderline significant ( p = 0.023) relationship for copanlisib exposure expressed as time‐invariant AUC (0–168)nd (Figure 3b ), indicating that higher exposure in copanlisib‐treated patients was associated with prolonged PFS.

Because HPV16 is the most frequent HPV genotype worldwide associated with severe cervical precancerous lesions, hence the borderline significant difference ( p = 0.0233) in HPV16 and HPV18 frequency between SMILE only vs.

Levels of tau were significantly higher in patients with lower GCS ( P = 0.0095) and borderline significant for S100b ( P = 0.0237), NSE ( P = 0.0213), and GFAP ( P = 0.0107; Table 2 ), implying higher CSF biomarker levels in cases with more severe neurological injury and deeper coma score.

The association between higher Actinobacteria proportion with decreasing response of TNF-α to LPS was borderline significant at pre-treatment [estimate (95% CI): −1.55 (−2.87, −0.22), p -value = 0.024; Figure 2A ].

Borderline significant associations of rs6495446 were observed with CKD at study visit 1 (p = 0.024), eGFR at study visits 1 (p = 0.073) and 4 (lower mean eGFR per C allele by 0.6 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , p = 0.043) and kidney disease progression (hazard ratio 1.13 per each C allele, 95% CI 1.00–1.26, p = 0.041).

The Moran I statistic indicated no significant spatial autocorrelation for most WaSH components (water, Moran I = 0.0998 and P = .14; hygiene, I = −0.1447 and P = .76), with the exception of a borderline significant value for sanitation ( I = 0.2223 and P = .024), hinting at potential localized effects.

In non-BVZ treated patients ( n = 224), HRs were not significant for cluster 3 (HR = 0.72, P = 0.18, CI 0.45–1.16 for PFS and HR = 0.84, CI 0.49–1.44 for OS, Cox regression), while for cluster 2 patients, a borderline significant effect was observed for PFS (HR = 0.57, P = 2.4 × 10 −2 , CI 0.35–0.93, Cox regression), which was not confirmed at the OS level (Supplementary Figure 8 ).

We observed a significant and borderline significant increase in body weight of F3 relative to F2 or F1 PAA offspring ( p = 0.0248 and p = 0.0596, respectively).

JPH3:RyR1 versus JPH3:RyR3 is borderline significant (p=0.0248) and JPH4:RyR2 versus JPH4:RyR1 is not significant (p=0.2366). 6.

A better prognosis was observed in VEGF High CD8 High compared to VEGF Low CD8 Low and a borderline significant was found in VEGF High CD8 High compared to VEGF Low CD8 High (Fig. 7 D, P = 0.025, P = 0.065, respectively).

There was a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.025) in the sensitivities of the 3D7 and Dd2 strains to 8-azaguanine but not to the other purine nucleobases ( Table 1 ) and we conclude that purine derivates are not cross-resistant with chloroquine.