“borderline significant”

Future perspectives were significantly different between PAC and CG post-intervention (MD [95% CI]: 23.7 [6.2; 41.3], p = 0.004, scale range 0–100) and borderline significant between ExG and CG (MD [95% CI]: 21.8 [4.2; 39.3], p = 0.009, scale range 0–100).

Notably, the addition of SHR to APSIII showed limited incremental value regardless of PSM status, with only borderline significant improvement for in-hospital mortality before matching (AUC: 0.811 to 0.822, P = 0.009) and no significant improvement after matching ( P = 0.126).

In contrast, the AUCs for reconstructions using the NZPL sCSD were significantly above the critical AUC across all jitter FWHMs, with the exception of the largest FWHM (π radians), where EEG reconstruction was non-significant and MEG reconstruction was borderline significant ( t (9) = 2.86, p = 0.0094).

Abexinostat increases tumor growth delay when used in triple combination in a borderline significant way (p=0.05) with a clear trend to improved survival (logrank test for trend p= 0.0096) (Figure 6F , Supplementary Figure 2E ).

There was also a weak borderline significant correlation in placebo-treated patients ( r = 0.19; P = 0.01; Fig. 1 a).

The effect of amblyopic eye VA on responses of the amblyopic eye in binocular viewing was borderline significant (0.09 D less accurate for each line of VA reduction, P = 0.01), whereas the interaction between stimulus and VA was not significant for the accommodative response of the amblyopic eye in binocular viewing ( P = 0.23).

In both Model 2 and Model 3, which included further adjustments for potential confounders, the elevated risk in Q4 remained similar and borderline significant (Model 3: HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.11–2.15, P = 0.01).

Baseline intensity ratings and left-hemisphere amplitude at 926 ms in the pleasant odor condition were positively correlated, but only borderline significant after Bonferroni-Šidák correction, ( r (20) = 0.56, p = 0.01).

In the full model, COVID-19 was borderline significant ( p = 0.05), while age was highly significant ( p < 0.01).

For example, for phospho-PERK, the effect of AOAA in DS was borderline significant in males ( p = 0.058), while in females, it was highly significant ( p < 0.01).

Deletions (including frameshift deletions; hGIS1, P =0.0004; hGIS2, P =0.0038), mononucleotide repeat frameshifts (hGIS1, P <0.0001; hGIS2, P <0.0001) and splice-site mutations (hGIS1, P =0.0003; hGIS2, P =0.0002) were present at significantly increased levels in both hGIS1 and hGIS2 genes, and nonsense mutations were present at statistically significant increased levels in hGIS1 and at borderline significant levels in hGIS2 (hGIS1, P =0.01; hGIS2, P =0.0613) ( Supplementary Data 3 ).

This comparison for CD3+IT-CD8 was borderline significant ( P = 0.01) ( Fig 2F ).

However, a borderline significant association was observed in white men, who exhibited a higher mean body mass index (BMI) (27.8 ± 4.2 kg/m 2 vs 24.1 ± 3.1 kg/m 2 ; p < 0.01). 21 Similarly, in a cohort of 100 patients with atherosclerosis and a mean age of 72.1 years, no significant correlation was observed between D-dimer concentration and IMT.

Including Brixton scores as a covariate while comparing patients with apathy against scores for those without apathy showed no effect of the Brixton score on moral judgements (F(1,11) = 2.91, ns) though the differences in moral judgements between patients with apathy and those without apathy became borderline significant (F(1,11) = 4.27, p < .01).

For death, the interaction was highly significant for persons aged 60–69 ( p < 0.01) and borderline significant for persons aged 70–79 ( p = 0.06) and 80–89 ( p = 0.04).

The unified model with fMRI-based characteristic path length as outcome variable and characteristic path length from all 4 EEG bands as regressors had a borderline significant p value of 0.052, with only the delta EEG-based characteristic path length showing a significant effect of p = 0.01 (Table 6 ).

Some of the markers showed borderline significant deviation (p = 0.01–0.05) from HWE (underlined), but no marker had a HWE p-value less than 0.05 in more than one dataset, so all markers were used for the association analysis.

However, by using SKAT and SKAT-O, the P value is borderline significant ( P = 0.01, Fig. 1 ; Supplementary Additional file 1, Supplemental digital content 1, http://links.lww.com/PG/A221 ).

In column 2, we note that POPULATION it is highly significant (p<0.01), while PerCapitaGDP t is borderline significant (p<0.12).

The item “As regards the HPV vaccination, I was clear about the best choice for my daughter” was borderline significant ( r = .09; p = .01); mothers seemed more likely to let their daughter receive the HPV vaccination if they agreed with this statement.

Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed Bonferroni‐corrected significant area under the curve (AUC) associations for all biomarkers and re‐hospitalization, except for borderline significant MR‐proADM: NT‐proBNP (AUC 0.595, 95% CI 0.525–0.666; P = 0.010), cystatin C (AUC 0.614, 95% CI 0.542–0.687; P = 0.002), copeptin (AUC 0.599, 95% CI 0.530–0.668; P = 0.007), MR‐proADM (AUC 0.597, 95% CI 0.524–0.669; P = 0.011), and CT‐pro‐ET‐1 (AUC 0.606, 95% CI 0.537–0.675; P = 0.004).

Besides, the lymph node metastasis showed borderline significant associations with CEA positivity and CA19-9 positivity ( P = 0.010 and 0.022, respectively) (Table 2 ).

Highly significant ( P ≤ .01) and significant ( P < .05) or borderline significant ( P < .10) associations between exercise intervention adherence and various factors were identified in univariable 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 or bivariable analysis. 49 , 51 Thereafter, these factors were included in a multivariable analysis to finally derive predictors of adherence to exercise intervention.

Moreover, a borderline significant relationship was found between bitterness and astringency ( r = 0.931, p < 0.01).

The other investigation, which included 214 university students based in the U.K., reported a borderline significant positive association between change (from October 2019 to April 2020) in sedentary time and change in perceived stress (r = 0.18, p < 0.010), but found no statistically significant associations between change in physical activity or sedentary time with change in mental well-being ( Savage et al., 2020 ).