Barely Significant
← all phrases

“borderline significant”

11,410 sentences · 11,410 papers · 14,072 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

borderline significantP = 0.0571.1× alphagold
The percent TF+ monocytes showed an inverse association with nadir CD4 count that was borderline significant ( P = 0.057: Spearman correlation), whereas no other monocyte markers were associated with clinical or demographic features (data not shown).
borderline significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
The association between the WHO status and Problem‐focused coping was borderline significant ( p = 0.057) with patients with a WHO status of 1 ( β = −0.75; 95% CI[−1.268; −0.228]) or 2 ( β = −1.33; 95% CI [−2.330; 0.340], ie, somewhat restricted in activities) scoring lower on Problem‐focused coping than patients with a WHO status of 0 (ie, fully active). 4.
borderline significantp-value =0.0571.1× alphagold
In contrast, there was a borderline significant difference ( p-value =0.057) in the rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity when we used RT-real-time PCR on nasopharyngeal samples at the time of blood withdrawal ( Table 3 ), suggesting that spike protein-positive patients still had detectable viral load at the time of hospitalization.
borderline significantP = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Regarding the other characteristics included in the analysis, no significant differences in survival were observed based on histology, whereas sex, smoking status and performance status were borderline significant in the univariate analysis, but in multivariate analysis only performance status remained borderline significant ( P = 0.057) (Table 3) .
borderline significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
There was a significant between-group main effect ( F (2, 133) = 6.742, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.092) for MS 3 duration, a significant cue × group interaction effect ( F (2, 133) = 5.246, p = 0.006, η p 2 = 0.073) and a significant between-group main effect ( F (2, 133) = 9.746, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.128) for MS 3 coverage; and there was a significant cue × group interaction effect ( F (2, 133) = 3.369, p = 0.037, η p 2 = 0.048) and a borderline significant between-group main effect ( F (2, 133) = 2.935, p = 0.057, η p 2 = 0.042) for MS 4 coverage, and a significant cue × group interaction effect ( F (2, 133) = 5.669, p = 0.004, η p 2 = 0.079) and a significant between-group main effect ( F (2, 133) = 6.640, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.091) for MS 4 occurren
borderline significantP = 0.0571.1× alphagold
In multiple regression analysis using both clinical and categorical laboratory characteristics as independent variables, all clinical factors as well as higher serum vitamin B12 levels retained substantial independent value for poststroke HF, except CAD which becomes borderline significant ( P = 0.057).
borderline significantP =0.0571.1× alphagold
Interestingly, meta-regression analyses revealed a borderline significant correlation between the reported effect sizes and the proportion of postmenopausal women in individual studies (slope=-0.543, P =0.057; Figure 5C ), suggesting a trend between a stronger beneficial effect with an increasing number of postmenopausal women enrolled in the original trials.
borderline significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
For the ASMR-incapable group, there were significant multivariate effects at F (10, 88) = 2.56, p < 0.05; Wilk’s Λ = 0.601, η 2 = 0.225, and univariate analysis suggested significant differences for arousal–clam mood changes [ F (2, 48) = 6.52, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.214] and unpleasant–pleasant mood changes [ F (2, 48) = 6.84, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.214], and borderline significant difference with valence [ F (2, 48) = 3.04, p = 0.057, η 2 = 0.562].
borderline significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
Interestingly, echocardiographic SV significantly overestimated the corresponding hemodynamic measurements at low cardiac output states and underestimated them at high-output septic shock states ( p = 0.025), while echocardiographic CO depicted borderline significant value ( p = 0.057).
borderline significantp = 0.0571.1× alphagold
In CA-CRC, the hypermethylation frequencies of NTSR1 , SOCS2, and SOCS1 (32–42%) clearly exceeded those of the paired normal tissues (0%); however, statistical significances were lost when the Bonferroni correction was applied ( Figure 4 a), and only NTSR1 remained borderline significant ( p = 0.057).