“borderline significant”

A p -value > 0.05 indicated that the data followed a normal distribution and justified the use of t -tests: Differences were considered as “highly significant” in cases with p -values ≤ 0.005, as “significant” with p -values ≤ 0.05, and as “borderline significant” with p -values between 0.05 and 0.10.

Cochran’s Q test did not indicate notable heterogeneity in any of the CSF metabolites tested, and all MR-Egger intercept tests were non-significant (P > 0.05), with the exception of myo-inositol, which showed a borderline significant intercept (P = 0.005), suggesting potential pleiotropic bias for this trait.

The odds of being injured in a fall were higher for people with severely impaired balance but only borderline significant difference for those experiencing body pain (OR = 21.33, 95% CI [2.54, 179.22], z = 2.82, p = 0.005 and OR 2.94, 95% CI [0.99, 8.74], z = 1.94, p = 0.053, respectively).

Significance was defined as ‘not significant’ (n.s.) with p values > 0.10, as ‘borderline significant’ with p values 0.10 to 0.05, as ‘significant’ with p values 0.05 to 0.005 and as ‘highly significant’ with p values < 0.005.

The differences were considered as ‘not significant’ in cases with p values >0.1, as ‘borderline significant’ (significant*), with p values between 0.1 and 0.05, as ‘significant’ (significant**) with p values between 0.05 and 0.005 and as ‘highly significant’ (significant***) with p values <0.005.

Significance was defined as ‘not significant’ (n.s.) with p values > 0.10, as ‘borderline significant’ with p values from 0.10 to 0.05, as ‘significant’ with p values from 0.05 to 0.005 and as ‘highly significant’ with p values < 0.005.

Magnesium showed a borderline significant association with NLR that remained significant after FDR correction ( p = 0.005, q = 0.009); however, its associations with SII and MLR did not survive correction.

43 In MARTHA, plasma levels of hsa-miR-143-3p were negatively significantly correlated with BMI ( ρ = −0.24, P = 3.6 × 10 −4 ) and borderline significant with PAI-1 activity levels ( ρ = −0.21, P = 5.3 × 10 −3 ) ( Supplementary material online , Table S2 ).

While TIGIT + CD3 + T cells exhibited a borderline significant decrease from diagnosis to remission, the relapsed patients consistently showed an increased proportion of TIGIT + CD3 + T cells compared to the CR patients ( p = 0.0056, Figure 2 E).

In our pediatric cohorts, the association of rs1260326 and rs780094 in GCKR was borderline significant ( p = 0.006, OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.1–1.78).

FAM118A was borderline significant in the screen ( P = 0.006) and supported by a chromatin loop observed in the hFOBs.

Anti-α-synuclein ( b = 0.186; P = 0.048) was borderline significant, and α-synuclein/Aβ40 ( b = 0.015; P = 0.006) was the only significant biomarker for predicting cognitive impairment in PD group (M2; Table 4 ).

The second GWAS SNP, rs12425791, was only borderline significant based on our threshold of one expected false discovery (HR = 1.31, p = 0.006).

The decrease in HRQOL was significant in the domain of bodily pain (mean difference = -3.7, p = < .001) and borderline significant in the domain of vitality (mean difference = -3.46, p = .006).

A few other associations were borderline significant: rs7117858 ( r -value = 0.054, AA P-value = 0.006) and rs7108738 ( r -value = 0.059, AA P-value = 0.004), both near LUZP2 ; and rs12272917 ( r -value = 0.092, AA P-value = 0.01) in PPP6R3 .

IDO-1 positivity in immune cells was found to be significantly associated with OS in the univariate setting and was borderline significant in the multivariable model [P-value = 0.006 and 0.053; HR: 0.798 (95% CI: 0.635-1.003)].

For our sample, race‐ethnicity data (Table 1 ) showed that Hispanic individuals had a significant to borderline significant increased odds of MCI compared with NHW [OR (95% CI): 1.26 (1.07, 1.49), p = 0.006 (diabetes model); OR (95% CI): 1.37 (1.1, 1.7), p = 0.004 (hypertension model); OR (95% CI): 1.23 (0.98, 1.55), p = 0.074 (hypercholesterolemia model)].

For the prevalence of inguinal hernia, the comparison of all AAA patients versus control patients was highly significant ( p = 0.006; OR = 4.00; 95% CI: 1.49–10.66), while EVAR versus rAAA was borderline significant ( p = 0.04; OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 1.01–25.3).

However, three other supertypes were borderline significant using FDR-adjusted q values ( q < 0.10), including the DR8 supertype (PR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.19–2.85; p =0.007; q = 0.080; p permutation = 0.917) described by Lund et al., 15 the DR1*01 supertype (PR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.14–2.56; p =0.01; q = 0.098; p permutation = 0.336) described by Nielsen et al., 16 a

In colorectal cancer, the rate of TOP1 CNG has been reported to range from 53 to 84% [ 26 , 27 ]; moreover, in a metastatic setting, a borderline significant association ( p = 0.007) between an increase in the TOP1 CN and an objective response to second-line treatment with irinotecan monotherapy has been reported [ 28 ].

Using a Bonferroni‐adjusted alpha of 0.008, the group‐by‐age interaction was significant for the frontal lobe [ F (1,35) = 10.935, P = 0.002, partial θ = 0.238], and borderline significant for the parietal lobe [ F (1,35) = 7.814, P = 0.008, partial θ = 0.183].

Notably, the highest MCMI quartile still showed borderline significant heart disease risk in Model 3 (HR = 1.29, p = 0.008), implying MCMI captures unique metabolic dysregulation patterns/synergistic effects not fully reflected by individual traditional indicators.

Although the MR Egger (bootstrap) analysis showed a borderline significant positive association ( β = 0.052, 95% CI = −0.004 to 0.104, p = 0.008), this finding is not conclusive, given that its confidence interval contains zero values and is inconsistent with the results of other analytical methods.

We found that acquisition z-scores and recall-ratio z-scores showed a weak but borderline significant correlation [ r = 0.19, t (193) = 3.90, p < 0.008].

When comparing early stage (1 and 2) and advanced stage tumors (3 and 4), we found that loss of cytoplasmic CDK1 was borderline significant for early stage tumors ( p = 0.063) but highly significant for late stage tumors ( p = 0.008) ( Figure 4C and Table 2 ).