“borderline significant”

Overall time had a borderline significant difference ( p = 0.05) for patients with a Q12-16 response (Table 3 , Fig. 5 ).

MMSE showed significant positive correlations with role limitations due to physical health (r = 0.171, p = 0.011) and pain (r = 0.136, p = 0.044), as well as a borderline significant correlation with the SF-36 total score (r = 0.132, p = 0.050), indicating that better cognitive performance was associated with fewer physical limitations and more favourable pain and overall functioning.

Predicted versus reoptimized plan target dose delivery In comparing the dosimetry of the single-fraction SABR predicted plans to the reoptimized plans on the first 5 setup MRI scans, there was a borderline significant 4.7% increase in the mean PTV V 95% when the predicted plan was reoptimized (85.0% vs 88.1%, P = .05; Fig 2 ).

However, this reduction was borderline significant in the group with more than 12 sessions ( P =0.05).

Despite the limited number of animals that could be tested in these experimental settings, this finding was borderline significant (Fisher exact test; p = 0.05).

Adjusted for gender, age, diabetes, gout, calendar time, and SWL, URS was associated with a borderline significant lower risk of CKD (HR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.49, 1.00; p = 0.05); however, given the multiple different regression models, this finding may be spurious.

In our study, a higher percentage of children with normal ALT levels had good general condition upon admission compared to children with elevated ALT (borderline significant): 26% of children with normal ALT levels were found in good general condition vs. 8.3% in the group with elevated ALT levels, p = 0.05.

The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a meaningfully different and borderline significant risk of CVD/mortality for patients with proteinuria >1 g/d at baseline ( P = 0.05; Figure 2 A).

Evaluation of systemic markers of inflammation (hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-8 and fibrinogen) only revealed a borderline significant decrease in plasma hs-CRP concentration after doxycycline treatment (−0.51 μg/ml, P =0.050; Table 3 ).

Egger's tests were borderline significant ( P = 0.05) or statistically significant ( P = 0.03), respectively. discussion The present systematic literature review and meta-analysis of follow-up studies clearly supports that, in breast cancer survivors, higher BMI is consistently associated with lower overall and breast cancer survival, regardless of when BMI is ascertained.

The increase was borderline significant when restricting the analysis to include only patients with a schizophrenia diagnosis ( p = .05) and significant after adjusting for covariates ( F 1,82 = 6.21, p = .01) ( Figure 1B ).

RV free wall mean strain also showed a slight although borderline significant deterioration (from −16.9 ± 5.6% to −15.7 ± 4.1%; p = 0.05).

The intergroup comparison revealed that compared with the usual care group, the pad usage in the true-auriculotherapy group was significantly decreased ( P = 0.023), and the average 24 h UI episodes in the true-auriculotherapy group had a borderline significant difference ( P = 0.050).

In the patient group, response times to addition sums that bridged a decade (M = 4431.18, SD = 4197.4) showed a borderline significant difference from those addition sums that did not bridge a decade (M = 3698.98, SD = 3765); standardized test statistic = −1.96, n = 9, p = 0.05.

The study compared “self-help decoupling” (authors stating that parts of decoupling may be considered a variant of HRT, as they both interfere at the motor level of functioning) with “self-help progressive muscle relaxation (PMR).” Using an intention to treat analysis, borderline significant advantage was found in favor of HRT in regards to hair pulling symptoms on the Massachusetts General Hospital-Hair-Pulling Scale (MGH-HPS) ( p = 0.05), with medium to strong effect size.

Otherwise, we examined univariate analysis results. To eliminate the impact of the borderline significant results, we considered P≤0.05 as significant (not P=0.051).

A borderline significant negative association with rheumatologic diseases was also observed (aOR 0.77 [95% CI 0.59–1.00]; p = 0.05).

After adjustment for baseline covariate differences, the least square mean change (standard error [SE]) in DSI was borderline significant in the incremental group (− 9.7 [4.8], P = 0.05) and it remained strongly significant in the conventional group (− 13.8 [5.0], P = 0.009).

For progression to NV, a similar effect of BMI for type 1 carriers versus noncarriers was not seen: the effect of BMI among carriers was not significant (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2, 1.9; P = 0.33), whereas it was borderline significant among noncarriers (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.0, 1.4; P = 0.05).

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).

However, a borderline significant interaction between the effects of Modic changes and the presence of CEP on inflammation scores was observed ( F =3.76, p =0.05). 4.

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

Examining the RG and FG separately, the RG showed a significant 3.0-fold CK increase until week 3 ( p = 0.010), whereas the FG demonstrated only borderline significant changes by the factor 1.5 during the first week ( p = 0.05), peaking at 72 h after WB-EMS ( p = 0.048; r = 0.64).

After adjusting for 26 potential confounders, the association between eGFR-CHD was slightly attenuated and remained borderline significant (OR = 0.868 per 10 ml/min/1.73 m 2 increase, 95% CI = 0.760–1.000, p = 0.05).

Post hoc t -tests showed no difference between MDD and HC before treatment ( t (62) = −0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen’s d = 0.11), but a borderline significant difference after treatment ( t (62) = 1.99, p = 0.050, Cohen’s d = 0.51).