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 = .0440.9× alphagold
There was a borderline significant effect of the communication ( β coefficient = 9.2 mm, 95% confidence interval = 0.3 to 18.1, p = .044) on anxiety during PIC placement in phase 2 (Supplemental Digital Content, Table S6), but not in phase 1 ( β coefficient = 1.6, 95% confidence interval = −6.8 to 10, p = .7; Supplemental Digital Content, Table S5).
borderline significantp=0.04410.9× alphagold
Significant improvement in the physical component from the SF36 questionnaire was observed with increases from the baseline result of 42.4 to 72.7 at 24 months (p<.0001); The emotional component in the SF36 questionnaires mean scores highlighted a borderline significant increase from 56.5 to 81.7 at 24 months (p=0.0441).
borderline significantp = 0.0450.9× alphagold
However, for CD, the numerical trend toward lower estimates with increasing cumulative DDD category was more pronounced, with the highest category [>1500 DDD] yielding a multivariable OR of 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41–0.79]. We additionally ran analyses for cumulative statin dose excluding the small number of statin users where total DDD was truncated [ Supplementary Table 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online ]. The results were similar to those of our main analysis although, for CD, the test of linear trend was borderline significant [ p = 0.045]. 3.3.
borderline significantp = 0.0450.9× alphagold
Social wellbeing scores (borderline significant at the end of treatment p = 0.045) and physical wellbeing scores (not significant at the end of treatment p = 0.64) reduced from baseline to after the first round of chemotherapy but increased to above baseline levels at the end of the study treatment.
borderline significantp = 0.0450.9× alphagold
Results indicated no significant differences in network structure or global strength for most demographic and clinical comparisons (all p > 0.05), with the exception of a borderline significant difference in global strength between current drinkers and never-drinkers (S = 0.90, p = 0.045; see Supplementary Table 3).
borderline significantp=0.0450.9× alphagold
However, analyses of a secondary outcome, mortality at 90 days, found a borderline significant difference between the groups (4.2% of patients in the restrictive group died vs 2.6% of patients in the liberal group, p=0.045) creating uncertainty about recommending restrictive transfusion after cardiac surgery.
borderline significantp = 0.0450.9× alphagold
Genetic model analysis revealed a borderline significant association ( p = 0.045 ) of this variant under dominant model, however the results were not significant after applying corrections for confounders like age, sex and family history (p corr = 0.181). -509C > T TGFB polymorphism revealed significant association with PACG The allele and genotype frequency distribution along with genetic model analysis for PACG cases and controls are given in Table 2 .
borderline significantp -value = .04500.9× alphagold
Comparing AIC values between the linear model (AIC = 3147) and the generalized additive model (AIC = 3072) confirmed that the additive model provided a better fit to the data, with p -value < .0001 for person-level ambient temperature, and a borderline significant effect of age ( p -value = .0450 with an effect size of 2.1% increase in sedentary time for every 10 years of age).