“borderline significant”

However, a chi-squared test of independence showed a borderline significant association between the two variables ( p = 0.06).

The pooled analysis revealed a borderline significant 30% increased recurrence risk for ITCs versus node-negative disease (HR 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0–1.6; p = 0.06), with remarkable consistency between St Clair et al.

A borderline significant difference in distribution was observed between serous and endometrioid tumours (p = 0.060, Figure 3 A).

In addition, there was a borderline significant covariate * location effect (p = 0.06).

Furthermore, PTP1B was a borderline significant independent predictor for OS, HR 1.29 (CI; 0.99-1.68, P=0.06), and a significant independent predictor for DFS, HR 1.36 (CI; 1.05-1.75, P=0.02) (Tables 2 - 3 ).

By the 12-month follow-up, physical functioning scores in the 2 groups appeared to converge, though the difference remained borderline significant (ratio, 0.9; P = .06).

Previous local ablative therapies were borderline significant for local control ( p = 0.06).

Combined into a meta-analysis, the results were borderline significant in favor of legume consumption over controls ( P =0.06) [ 10 ].

An additional exploratory analysis showed a borderline significant correlation between higher logarithmic HOMA-IR and a higher [ 11 C]PIB SUVR composite score in the APOE4 / 4 group (rho = 0.44, p = 0.06), whereas there was no association in APOE3/3 (rho = 0.16, p = 0.50) or APOE3/4 (rho = −0.052, p = 0.82) carriers.

In subjects with non-diagnosed HTN, the responder group showed significantly lower DBP, and the proportion of combined triple H condition was borderline significant ( p = 0.06) regarding CV risk ( Table 2 ).

This difference was borderline significant (difference = 5.1 kg, CI = -0.3 to 10.3, p = 0.06).

By implementation group there was a significant difference in patient registration (42/278, 15%, UI vs 29/347, 8%, AI; P =.01) and a borderline significant difference in patient authentication (26/278, 9%, UI vs 24/347, 7%, AI; P =.06).

The overall analysis of capecitabine-based versus capecitabine-free group yielded a borderline significant result in OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.82–1.00, p = 0.06) ( Fig. 3 ).

Beyond that, postmenopausal status suggested a borderline significant increase in the risk of CBC (HR = 3.99, P = .06).

Correlation Analysis of HR Expression A borderline significant correlation was observed between age at diagnosis and HR expression ( p = 0.06).

However, the group difference in NPZlrn-mem became borderline significant ( p =0.06); there was no trend-level difference in BDI-TOT ( p =0.16); and the difference in walking time was non-significant (non-frail: 3.4 ± 0.5; pre-frail: 3.7 ± 0.6; p =0.15).

The interaction between household/transportation PA groups and time remained significant for the TMTB (p = 0.03) and IST (p = 0.009) scores, suggesting a slower decline over time, and was borderline significant for the TMTA scores (p = 0.06).

In the multiple linear regression analysis the nonoperatively treated patients with a type A fracture scored better than operatively treated type A fractures; this was borderline significant (p = 0.06).

Large GTV volume (>50 cm3) was borderline significant [p = 0.06].

The interaction term for age was borderline significant for the any pesticides ( p = 0.06) and fungicides ( p = 0.05) classes at the 5 % level of significance (data not shown).

Additionally, maternal pre-pregnancy underweight seemed to have a rather strong inverse association with asthma related hospitalization in males and, though only borderline significant (P = 0.06), it seemed that feeding method affected the risk of hospital in males, while not at all having an effect on females.

When all data are included, no significant correlation is present ( r = 0.40, P = 0.10), but this correlation becomes borderline significant ( r = 0.47, P = 0.06) upon exclusion of the two outlying data points of the subjects with the two highest values for whole body glucose uptake.

We observed a significant interaction between dietary n-3 LC-PUFAs and treatment groups ( P = 0.005) and a borderline significant interaction by cohort ( P = 0.06) for the difference in mean UAER.

Taste and cost had borderline significant results by gender and region (p = 0.06 and p = 0.07, respectively).

Of note, the number of oligoprogressive lesions requiring treatment and the time between start of abiraterone or enzalutamide and RT treatment were prognostic factors for PCSS on univariate analysis, although the number of lesions treated was only borderline significant on multivariate analysis (p=0.06).