“borderline significant”

The only borderline significant (treatment effect = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.0-2.4; P = .05) differences seen in these sensitivity analyses were between the groups receiving 400 mg and 200 mg minocycline hydrochloride.

Regarding vascular function markers, FMD (borderline significant p = 0.050), RI, AI, and SI were independently associated with a HR below 53 bpm.

Importantly, the Charlson Comorbidity Index showed a borderline significant association with longer antibiotic duration (β = 4.57, 95% CI: −0.05 to 9.20, p = 0.05). 3.6.

Odds ratios were borderline significant for HCN and gender (female as reference), OR = 1.85 (p = 0.050) and OR = 5.68 (p = 0.041) respectively. 4.

According to the analysis: Structure: C (2.32) > B (2.21) > A (1.98)— p = .044*, Activity: C (0.91) > A (0.49)— p = .068 (borderline significant), Freedom: C/B (2.13) > A (1.84)— p > .05, Other Factors: No significant difference between groups in Privacy, Emotional Feedback, Support, and Social Interaction ( p > .05).

Coronary artery disease was borderline significant as a determinant of renal dysfunction (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82, p = 0.05) (Table 2 ).

Better performance was noted on the CE-SDCT with a borderline significant difference (P = 0.05) for senior radiology resident.

A borderline significant decrease in MDA concentration was also observed as compared to the value before experiment I (84.4%; p = 0.050) ( Figure 4 ). 3.5.

Lastly, consumption of cereal most or all days was protective of asthma (OR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.45–0.99), although borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

Nonparametric Jonckheere-Terpstra test was used to analyze the differences in median PAI-1 serum levels between ordinal HY score groups from 1 to 4 and a borderline significant difference was found between the groups ( p = 0.05).

However, the sex interaction P -values were only borderline significant ( P = 0.05–0.11) due to lack of statistical power, except for AF-PRS post-PCI ( P = 0.003).

However, the interaction of sex with the association between log-transformed 3% ODI and CHD was only borderline significant ( p =0.05).

A borderline significant association remained after controlling for differences in age category, sex, and site location (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% CI [1.00, 2.88], p = 0.05).

An interaction between HNF1A G319S and baseline pack-years was borderline significant (p = 0.05).

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

Besides, nontimely initial injections (over than 2 hours) reached a borderline significant (Adjusted OR = 4.14, 95% CI: 1.00–17.18, P = 0.050).

6 ), the most represented cancer within the subnetwork, and a borderline significant correlation for BLCA (p-value = 0.05, Supplementary Fig. 6 ).

We found a borderline significant sex-mediator interaction ( p = 0.050) between sex and work time control and a statistically significant interaction between sex and chronic diseases ( p = 0.038) in the counterfactual models predicting extended employment.

For self-reported adherence in the past month, we found only a borderline significant difference in proportion of participants reaching 100% adherence, with 61% in the SMS arm, 41% in the RTMM arm, and 52% in the control arm ( P = 0.05).

There were also borderline significant differences between communities (adjusted r 2 = 0.02; p = 0.05).

There was a borderline significant decrease in risk (0.01<P<0.05) with low dose unopposed equine oestrogen, low dose unopposed non-equine oestrogen, high dose unopposed non-equine oestrogen, and continuous high dose non-equine.

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).

Femoral IMT was borderline significant ( P = 0.05), and lower in the NTG subjects.

Baseline correlation of CMR parameters and EAT EAT was positively correlated with LV mass ( r = 0.25, p = 0.01) and showed a borderline significant association with LVEF ( r = 0.2, p = 0.05).

Longer episode duration was associated with a small borderline significant reduction in treatment effectiveness (β = 0.24, p = 0.05), irrespective of treatment protocol (episode duration × Treatment: β = −0.23, p = 0.31); no difference was observed between patients with MDD vs.