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 = 0.0470.9× alphagold
However, the ssGSEA-based TIS had at least borderline significant correlation with both of these variables despite the small number of samples ( p = 0.047 for the correlation with IHC-based T cell counts and 0.057 for the correlation with total TCRb read counts) (Fig. 7b , middle and right panels).
borderline significantp = 0.0470.9× alphagold
The immunoreactivity for MCP-1/ CCL2 in the polyps positively correlated with that for MCP-2/ CCL8 ( ρ = 0.46, p = 0.0001), while MCP-1/ CCL2′ s correlation with MCP-3/ CCL7 was weak and borderline significant ( ρ = 0.25, p = 0.047), and that between MCP-3/ CCL7 and MCP-2/ CCL8 was non-significant ( ρ = 0.25, p = 0.053). 3.2.
borderline significantP value = 0.0470.9× alphagold
The unsupervised hierarchical clustering of these tumors results in two main branches; the distribution of metastases as first event between these two main branches shows a borderline significant difference; 3/28 (11%) patients in the left branch developed distant metastases versus 14/43 in the right branch (33%), P value = 0.047.
borderline significantP=0.0470.9× alphagold
Associations between sociodemographic factors and neurocognitive impairment Academic level (grade) of the participant had a borderline significant association with neurocognitive impairment [adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.18; confidence interval (CI)= (0.03; 0.89); P=0.047]; the rest of the exposure variables were not significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment (p>0.05) ( Table 4 ).
borderline significantP =0.0470.9× alphagold
A borderline significant survival benefit was seen with G17DT compared to placebo (median survival 150 vs 83 days; Wilcoxon P =0.047), although there was a lower incidence of metastatic stage IV disease in the G17DT arm (73 vs 84%, respectively) ( Gilliam et al , 2004 ).