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 = .0601.2× alphagold
In a multivariate model including cN-stage ( P = NS) and HR status (HR: 0.42, 95%CI: 0.22–0.79, P = .007), the NLR remained borderline significant (HR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.26–1.02, P = .060). 4 Discussion In this study, we investigated commonly used peripheral inflammation markers (NLR, PLR and LMR) in a cohort of 127 IBC patients (of which 34 patients had metastatic disease).
borderline significantP = .061.2× alphagold
Low positive affect had a weaker, but still statistically significant association with problems with self-care (OR: 5.12; 95% CI: 1.48–17.77; P = .01) and usual activities (OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.26–2.98; P = .002); the association with anxiety/depression problems was borderline significant (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: .99–2.39; P = .06), showing that a high score on positive affect was protective of these problems.
borderline significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
24 Moreover, Nordström et al examining the effect of Aspirin, Statin, or Antidiabetic medications on PCa in a population-based cohort of 185,667 patients, found a borderline significant association was found between the risk of PCa and Aspirin use (OR 1.12; 95% CI: 0.99–1.25; p = 0.06).
borderline significantP = 0.0601.2× alphagold
However, in the impaired group, the relationship between IPS and K 1 of total GM ( ρ = 0.65, P = 0.042) and K 1 of cortical GM ( ρ = 0.69, P = 0.026) was significant and several other PET measures showed borderline significant correlations with IPS (cortical GM V T : ρ = 0.61, P = 0.060); hippocampus K 1 : ρ = 0.63, P = 0.063; hippocampus V T : ρ = 0.61, P = 0.062; thalamus V T : ρ = 0.60, P = 0.069).
borderline significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
When we used these genes as a signature using a mean of expression of all genes (10 genes), we observed an association with favourable outcome, being statistically borderline significant for PD1 treatment, and the association was strongly positive for anti-CTLA4 or combinatorial therapies (Anti PD1: HR = 0.75; CI 0.56–1.01; p = 0.06; Anti CTLA4: HR = 0.42; CI 0.24–0.74; p = 0.002; Anti PD1 + Anti CTLA4: HR = 0.21; CI 0.07–0.61; p = 0.0018) (Fig. 7 b).