“borderline significant”

For all patients, there were borderline significant reductions with the addition of bisphosphonates at 10 years for distant recurrence (20.4 vs 21.8%, p = 0.03), bone recurrence (7.8 vs 9.0%, p = 0.004), breast cancer mortality (16.6 vs 18.4%, p = 0.04), and all-cause mortality (20.8 vs 22.3%, 2 p = 0.06).

Why is the volcano plot clearly asymmetrical? Is there a batch effect? Likewise when breadth is said to increase in 6/18in group 2 this means it decreases in 12/18 and this seems to be borderline significant (p=0.03).

Heterogeneity among the studies was borderline significant ( I 2 = 52%, P = 0.03).

For OS, there was less evidence for an interaction and a borderline significant effect of L-MTP-PE ( P = 0.03) in the pooled analysis.

(SMD = 0.88, P = 0.0004) However, when combining the adjusted OR (after adjustment for birth weight, gestational age and other factors) provided from individual studies, only borderline significant association were observed on duration of hyperglycemia with ROP (adjusted OR 1.08, P = 0.03); and no significant association on mean glucose level with ROP (adjusted OR = 1.08, P = 0.15).

The new-onset psychoses and mania groups did not differ in gender distribution between 2019 and 2020, however the mean age of these patients showed a borderline significant difference in age, as patients in 2020 were younger compared to 2019 (median[IQR] = 29.0[18.79] and 34.75[21.75], respectively, p = 0.03).

When testing for modifiers, non-significant interactions were found except for CS where a borderline significant interaction was found with sex (p = 0.03).

The influence of gender on the use of supplements was borderline significant for creatine ( p = 0.03, chi-square) and iron (0.045, Fisher’s test) when the whole groups of climbers were analyzed, and the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test indicates that belonging to a given level of climbers does not influenced these differences—the smallest p was greater than 0.05.

On the other hand, there was a borderline significant relation of BMI to anti-inflammatory CD14+CD16−CD163+ macrophages ( P <0.03, Figure 1d ) but this correlation also disappeared after excluding subjects with obesity (data not shown).

There was a borderline significant worsening in TMT B ( p = 0.03; Figure 1B ), but not in TMT A or TMT B/A ( p > 0.05).

Patients were followed up over a mean time of 21 months with 57% of deaths occurring in the EUS-FNA group and 76% in the non-EUS-FNA group, with EUS-FNA having a borderline significant association with improved overall survival (Hazard Ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.72–0.99, P = 0.03).[ 7 ] The authors of the study concluded that preoperative EUS-FNA did not adversely affect overall or cancer-specific survival and is, therefore, safe to be performed as part of the work-up of suspicious pancreatic lesions.

The reduction of the survival rate by depleted water was borderline significant (p<0.03 before correction for multiple hypotheses), and could be due to statistical fluctuation.

The associated probabilities were either not significant (ASFV, p = 0.34) or at most borderline significant (FV and PV, p = 0.03).

Prevalence estimates for active TB showed a borderline significant increase over time in multivariable ( p = 0.03) but not univariable ( p > 0.10) analysis.

3A-C ), while patients with high hMENA 11a expression had a significant and borderline significant advantage in DFS (p=0.03) and OS (p=0.056), respectively, and a non-significant trend towards better CSS (Fig. 3D-F ).

Only variant 2 had a borderline significant enrichment of mutations in these genes compared to the rest of the genome ( P = 0.03, Fisher’s exact test), while variants 1 and 3 had no enrichment compared to the rest of the genome ( P values of 0.21 and 0.15, respectively, Fisher’s exact test).

There was also a borderline significant effect for type of final breast surgery ( P =0.03), with patients who had a mastectomy being at higher risk of developing a systemic recurrence than those who had breast conservation.

No significant differences were found for WC and TG, and SF-36 characteristics between two groups (except a borderline significant difference in RSBP value ( p = 0.03) which was higher in the control group).

We found borderline significant differences in the proportion of participants who dropped out between T1 and T2 for age (p = 0.03), with those younger than 65 years and older than 75 years dropping out.

The difference between pentads 2 and 3 is borderline significant ( p = 0.03).

As in the linear model, a sensitivity analysis with cost calculations excluding extra food and diapers also yielded very similar results, though the interaction term was non-significant, while the measure of complications was borderline significant (p = 0.03) and in the opposite direction.

In model 5, the results for mRNFL were attenuated and only borderline significant (model 5: difference = −0.14 microns, 95% CI = −0.28 to −0.01, P = 0.03).

The P154L substitution, which partially reduced protein interaction, was also borderline significant ( p = 0.03) in its chlorosis response.

The difference of the survival scale parameter β between the first and last calendar was borderline significant ( P = 0.03).

The primary propensity score model and the less parse, secondary model based on stepwise regression both exhibited good calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow statistics were either borderline significant [ P = 0.03] for the primary model or nonsignificant [ P = 0.16] for the stepwise model).