“borderline significant”

For Pb, a borderline significant difference was detected ( p = 0.050), with tub gurnard showing slightly higher mean values; however, this finding is limited by the high proportion of missing Pb data (68.1%).

Similarly, after adjustment for level of cognition, age, and well-being, there was a borderline significant association between exposure to the intervention and decrease in delirium score between hospital admission and discharge (beta = 0.8 [−0.01, 1.6], p = .05).

The difference in favour of etoposide phosphate was borderline significant: median 9.9 mg l(-1) h (95% CI 0.1-32.8 mg l(-1) h; P = 0.05).

A borderline significant correlation was present when exciting with 440 nm (r = 0.57, p = 0.05) and 750 nm (r = 0.55, p = 0.06).

However, the DQI-I scores showed significant variation across BMI categories ( p = 0.019), with post-hoc analysis indicating a borderline significant difference between underweight and overweight participants ( p = 0.050).

One-way ANOVA with cluster membership as the independent variable confirmed the existence of statistically significant differences between the three groups in all dependent variables ( p < 0.05) but one, which was nevertheless borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

There was a borderline significant relationship between increasing VEM levels and population percentage of the Asian race (Spearman 0.125, p =0.05).

The correlation between GLS measurements and the presence of grade ≥2 AR was borderline significant (r = 0.29, P = 0.05).

For NEUTs, a borderline significant decrease was observed between points II and III ( p = 0.05).

As can be seen in Table 4 , no significant indirect effects were found for any of the FPPs as a mediator in the link between parental general stress at baseline and adolescent zBMI at follow-up, though coercive control was borderline significant as a mediator of this link (b = 0.003, p = 0.05, 95% CI = (−0.0010, 0.0089)) in the unadjusted analyses. 5.

However, students’ satisfaction with their future income exhibited a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.05), with a higher proportion of first-year students reporting dissatisfaction (40.0% vs. 23.2% in sixth-year students).

This score showed a borderline significant difference between patients with AFVD (mean ± SD = 0.95 ± 0.12) and controls ( P = 0.05).

The optimal growth increment model for females were improved by allowing for heterogenous variance between MPAs and control areas (ΔAIC = −3.14), with the variance being higher in the MPAs (18.5) than in control areas (13.6). For males, protection had a borderline significant effect on both skipped moulting ( figure 2 ; LRT: status × TL: L = 3.75, d.f. = 1, p = 0.05) and growth increment ( figure 3 ; LRT: status × TL: L = 4.07, d.f. = 1, p = 0.04).

The estimated yearly decrease in trachoma in the control communities was -·04%, compared with -0·9% in the intervention communities, and this difference in the rate of change between control and intervention communities was borderline significant (p = 0·05).

Outcomes of LBBAP as CRT in LBBB vs Non-LBBB Pooled analysis from 2 studies showed a borderline significant difference in mean reduction of paced QRS duration (MD, 20.77 msec; 95% CI, −0.40 to 41.93 msec; P = 0.05; I 2 = 71%), and improvement in LVEF (MD, 6.00%; 95% CI, 0.15-11.84 %; P = 0.04; I 2 = 44%) in patients with underlying LBBB vs patients with underlying non-LBBB ( Fig. 4 ). 19 , 20 Quality assessment and publication bias Quality assessment of the individual studies determined that 8 of the included studies were of good quality with a low risk of bias.

This difference between the experimental and the control group was borderline significant (OR 3.54, P = 0.05, 95% CI 0.97–12.59), indicating that implementation intentions might have had a positive effect on the number of participants with vitamin D at home. 3.4.

However, for chlorpyrifos male farmers showed significantly higher FT4 and FT3 the day after spraying ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.047, n = 37), while for female farmers there was only a borderline significant increase for T3 ( p = 0.050, n = 14).

At rest, pooled analysis of three studies [ 13 – 15 ] ( Figure 2 ) demonstrated a modest but borderline significant reduction in mPAP with SGLT2i (MD = −1.41 mmHg; 95% CI: −2.80 to −0.01; p = 0.05).

Fatigue measured with EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL had a borderline significant effect in men (−0.33 (95%CI −0.67 to 0.03; p = 0.05)) but not in women ( p = 0.55).

Moreover, in a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling 106 patients with both NAFLD and T2DM who were assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg ( n = 35), pioglitazone 30 mg ( n = 34), or placebo ( n = 37) for 24 weeks, only a borderline significant decrease in CAP score was observed with empagliflozin compared with placebo (−29.6 dB/m (−39.5 to −19.6) vs. −16.4 dB/m (−25.0 to −7.8), respectively; p = 0.05) [ 39 ].

In this analysis, we found a borderline significant correlation between age and islet Cd levels in non-smokers (R 2 = 0.145, p = 0.050, n = 27, Fig. 2b ) but not in the relatively small cohort of smokers (n = 6).

This study found that patients with CeD, younger-onset diabetes, MS, asthma, and SLE were at higher risk of ALS, and the rate ratio for UC was borderline significant ( P = 0.05), and no significant difference was found for RA, psoriasis and CD.

There was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality between days of the week (p=0.28, table 4 ), but there was a borderline significant difference between weekend and weekday mortality before case-mix adjustment (4.9% vs 4.1%, OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.43, p=0.05), which became less significant after case-mix adjustment (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33, p=0.34).

The two nutrients that did not show significant linear trends had relatively low variance in that nutrient among cereals and were borderline significant (fat, p = 0.05) or had relatively few respondents that considered that nutrient (iron, n = 39).

For rs743572 ( CYP17A1 ), the dominant model yielded a borderline significant association (OR = 1.56; 95% CI: 1.00–2.45; P = 0.05), reinforcing the increased risk observed for the C allele in the main analysis.