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 = 0.061.2× alphagold
The interaction of the polymorphism rs3636536 within the VDR due to the functional relationship at 3 months after ending the therapy turned out to be borderline significant ( p = 0.06), while the correlation of pain intensity in rs4646536 with the genotype CC in rs11568820 ( VDR ) proved to be significant ( p = 0.02) [ 102 ].
borderline significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
IC resulted in a borderline significant reduction in time trial performance [0.31 (−0.60; −0.02), p = 0.06], heart rate [−0.13 (−0.27; 0.01), p = 0.06], rate of perceived exertion [−0.16 (−0.31; −0.00), p = 0.05] and borderline increased mean power output [0.22 (0.00; 0.44), p = 0.05].
borderline significantP =.061.2× alphagold
There was some evidence that the average change in workplace sitting varied from workplace to workplace with the random intercept for workplace being borderline significant ( P =.06) and a moderate to strong degree of clustering observed (intracluster correlation=0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.42) ( Figure 2 ).
borderline significantP = 0.0601.2× alphagold
When analysed by multiple regression, yoga treatment was found to be 10-fold (OR = 10.20, 95% CI = 0.69–174.19) borderline significant (P = 0.060) and ~8-fold (OR = 8.22, 95% CI = 2.02–33.49), statistically significant (P = 0.003), effective towards attaining the favourable composite ADA score 1 and 2, respectively (Table 2 ).
borderline significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
However, Ins2 Akita mice that received ASC-CM demonstrated an overall reduction in GFAP immunoreactivity, yet, the data are only borderline significant when an outlier is excluded from the data (Akita-ASC-CM: 3.0 ± 0.5; Akita-Saline: 5.3 ± 1.0 integrated density/equal area; p = 0.06, Fig. 6b ).
borderline significantP =0.061.2× alphagold
Subgroup univariable regression analysis based on sex revealed that elevated serum homocysteine levels are a significant predictor of CMED in males (OR, 1.50 [1.02–2.20]; P =0.04) and borderline significant in females (OR, 1.36 [0.98–1.89]; P =0.06; P interaction =0.71).
borderline significantp = 0.0601.2× alphagold
Anthropometric analysis showed a significant weight reduction in the spirulina group versus placebo (–2.85 ± 1.13 kg, p = 0.015), while BMI reduction was borderline significant (–0.78 ± 0.41, p = 0.060).
borderline significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Similar analysis on mutation-independent risk factors for OS were conducted individuating for the Mayo cohort, age >60 years (5.4, 3.3–9.1) and male gender (1.7, 1.1–2.6), and for the Florence cohort, age >60 years (12.4, 6.3–24.4), male gender (1.6, 1.0–2.7) and leukocyte count ≥11 × 10 9 /L; karyotype in the Mayo ET cohort was borderline significant ( p = 0.06) [ 51 ].
borderline significantP = 0.061.2× alphagold
The direct effect of anti-CT123/AccB on reducing the risk of ascension was significant ( P = 0.049) but was negated slightly by an insignificant indirect effect, leading to a borderline significant total effect ( P = 0.06) ( Table 9 and Fig. 7B ).