“borderline significant”

There was, however, a borderline significant difference ( P = .05) for higher daily sugar-sweetened beverage consumption for the PI group (32.3%) compared with the EI group (22.4%) ( Table 1 ).

At the day level, exercise was a borderline significant predictor of portion size ( p = .050).

In a Cox-proportional hazard model where the cause-specific hazards were investigated ( Figure 1B ), eGFR was only borderline significant ( P = .05) for CV events.

At 12 months, there was a borderline significant increase in fT4 levels compared to baseline (p=0.05), but values remained within normal limits (0.8–1.8 ng/dL).

Items that showed significant or borderline significant association with abortion (p< 0.05 and p<0.1, respectively) were put into multivariate analysis.

Being consistently inactive was associated with higher odds of having overweight/obesity according to all outcomes (borderline significant for WHtR ≥ 0.6 (p = 0.05)) compared to being consistently active.

In the fully adjusted model, negative RTW-expectations were borderline significant (p=0.050) while female gender significantly predicted benefit recipiency ( table 3 ).

Among baseline respiratory variables, driving pressure was slightly higher in the supine group (22 ± 5 cmH 2 O) compared to the prone group (18 ± 3 cmH 2 O), showing a borderline significant difference (p = 0.05).

While building the multivariable predictive model for SD, we found that diabetes was borderline significant with a negative association ( p = 0.05), even though it was not significant in univariable comparisons ( p = 0.94).

Among women, there was a borderline significant inverse association between obesity and DD (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33–1.00 p = 0.05) (Table 3 ).

Age was also found to be a borderline significant factor (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.89–1.01, P = 0.05), with younger patients tending to show greater improvement in fibrosis markers and grades.

No association was observed between protein intake and TIR, TAR, or TBR ( p -values ≥ 0.07); however, a borderline significant reduction of −1.9% (95% CI: −3.9%, 0.0%; p = 0.05) TBR per 20 g protein was observed following MICT in analyses stratified by exercise mode.

Conversely, borderline significant differences were observed in WBC count on day3, day5, and day7 after CC ( P < 0.05) except for day1.

The treatment group effect remained borderline significant ( p = 0.050).

However, it is important to note that only three studies included in the analysis had high quality, which accounted for 19.01% of the weight of the aggregated meta-analysis results, and the findings in the moderate-quality studies were borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

The BMI was highest in the physically inactive group and this was borderline significant [23.1 ±7.9 vs 20.1 ± 5.8 (p = 0.05)] (Table 1 ).

The heterogeneity test (I 2 = 61%) was substantially high with a borderline significant value ( p = 0.05).

Similar observations were demonstrated in the CON group, with a borderline significant ( p = 0.05) reduction in SBP of −1.4 mmHg [−2.8;0.0] and a significant ( p = 0.03) reduction in DBP of −1.5 mmHg [−2.8;−0.1], resulting in a reduction ( p = 0.01) in MAP of −1.5 mmHg [−2.6;−0.3].

The same pattern for gazing while listening was borderline significant ( F (1, 57) = 4.00, p = .050, partial ɳ 2 = .07).

6A ) and were borderline significant for OS (HR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.059–1, p = 0.05; Fig. 6B ).

However, data indicated a borderline significant subgroup differences ( P = 0.05) between subgroups of trials that excluded participants with PTSD and those that did not: a numerically larger treatment effect was observed in the trials that excluded PTSD (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.60 to −0.03) versus those that did not exclude PTSD (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.15 to 0.18).

It was reported that the −174 G>C polymorphism was not associated with cardiovascular death or a new myocardial infarction, whereas the −572 G>C polymorphism was associated with a borderline significant increase in risk ( P = 0.05) in univariate analysis [34] .

Thirty-day all-cause mortality showed a borderline significant difference favoring TAVR (RR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.30–1.01; p = 0.05).

In addition to promoting bacterial killing, treatment with 30 mM NAC visibly killed bacteria and disrupted the biofilm matrix, resulting in a borderline significant enhancement of dead biomass by 50 % (p = 0.05) ( Fig. 4 B–F).

Age showed a borderline significant link with mortality (p=0.05), suggesting a slight risk increase with age.