“borderline significant”

We saw a significant increase in child’s weight overtime for both group ( p -value = 0.023), and there was borderline significant difference in the weight change from baseline between intervention and comparison group ( p -value = 0.050).

Outcome percentage SDAI/CDAI/Boolean remission Targeting SDAI/CDAI-LDA significantly improved the percentage of patients in SDAI/CDAI/Boolean remission compared with both DAS-LDA and DAS-remission targets, after 1 year (borderline significant for DAS-LDA) and 2–3 years (year 1: 34% p=0.05 and 35% p=0.03 for comparison to DAS-LDA and DAS-remission respectively, year 2–3: 31% p=0.0002 and 36% p<0.0001) (see figure 2D and online supplemental tables S2 and S3 ).

Similar to the L6 diet, the H3-L6 diet also increased PGF2a concentration by 21% compared to baseline, but this increase was borderline significant ( p = 0.05).

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

The difference did however become borderline significant after adjustment ( P = .05) (Table 2 ).

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

Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05, with P values for borderline significant results approaching P = 0.05 also reported.

Statistical analyses between groups A and B revealed that mean age at the diagnosis of thyroid cancer was higher in patients of group B and this difference was borderline significant (t = -1.95, p = 0.05).

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 ).

There was no significant difference between the four groups in the baseline condition of Schober’s test before the training programmes ( p = 0.358) and the difference was borderline significant between the four groups ( p = 0.050) after the training period.

Age-group was statistically significant ( p = 0.0004) in the model while sex was borderline significant ( p = 0.050).

A borderline significant effect was found, with a pooled odds ratio of 2.1 (95 % CI = 1.0 to 4.5) and; X 2 = 3.783689, df = 1, p = 0.05.

Associations Between Histological Parameters and OVT on Broiler Level On broiler level, a linear mixed model revealed a significant association between the OVT concentration and the villus length ( P = 0.044) and a borderline significant association between the OVT concentration and the villus-to-crypt ratio ( P = 0.050) ( Figure 3 ).

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).

We also detected borderline significant associations of PTPN 12 eQTL rs11489585 with HBV mutations ( P = 0.05 for G1799C).

Among those who tested positive for HBsAg, a borderline significant difference was found between home injection users and non-users ( p <0.05).

To broaden our search, we also decided to include and describe results with p values that were borderline significant, i.e. 0.10 > p > 0.05.

The effect of loneliness on physical activity was borderline significant in the actively isolated group ( p = 0.050).

There was a small and borderline significant main effect of Direction, F (1,35) = 4.3, p = .05, r 2 = .004, with difficulty ratings in INC blocks generally lower than in DEC blocks.

This protective effect was particularly pronounced in patients with HFrEF, where OMT compliance was associated with a 38% risk reduction compared with no OMT (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.98, p = 0.04), and showed a borderline significant association in HFpEF (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34–1.00, p = 0.05), but not in HFmrEF (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36–1.15, p = 0.14).

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.

In the unadjusted comparison of outcomes between the IMN and ORIF pairs, there were no statistically significant differences, although the greater prevalence of revisions in the ORIF cohort was borderline significant ( p = 0.05) (Table 3 ).

Moreover, the presence of chocolate ingredient had a borderline significant effect on AFB1 (p = 0.05) and a significant effect on OTA (p = 0.002), with higher percentages observed in SKUs containing chocolate.

Notably, the direct causal effect of PE on FEV1 was borderline significant (OR 0.921, 95% CI 0.848–1.000, P = 0.050), which was inconsistent with UVMR and should be interpreted with caution (Table 3 ).

The OR at NPAR ≥ 0.92 remains at the borderline significant level ( P = 0.050), but the overall analysis does not support the existence of a threshold effect.