Barely Significant
← all phrases

“close to borderline significance”

12 sentences · 12 papers · 13 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.072

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

close to borderline significanceP = 0.0531.1× alphagold
Older age at the last clinical visit, longer time under ART and lower nadir CD4 were significantly associated with immunological categories 2 and 3, whereas older age at HIV diagnosis and ART start remained associated but the P values were close to borderline significance ( P = 0.053 and P = 0.056, respectively).
close to borderline significancep < 0.061.2× alphagold
Results Our result shows that hypermethylation in site 2 of the CYP2R1 gene with body weight ( p < 0.004), BMI ( p < 0.002), waist circumference ( p < 0.002), total-LDL ( p < 0.027), total cholesterol ( p < 0.022), and vitamin D (VD) (close to borderline significance p < 0.06) and site 4 of CYP2R1 with LDL ( p < 0.041) in the four tested sites among normal and obese women was significantly associated.
close to borderline significanceP = 0.0681.4× alphagold
Regarding the couples' ages, neither the male age factor nor the female age factor significantly affected the AIH pregnancy rate, but the female age factor was close to borderline significance ( P = 0.068), and the pregnancy rates of the female age <30 years and 30–39 years groups were almost 3 times higher than that of the female age ≥40 years group (13.7% and 13.0 vs. 4.8%).
close to borderline significancep = .0701.4× alphagold
failed to achieve significancep = .0701.4× alphaplainly factual
When examining the liver, we observed a modest antitumour effect in the BF MSC group, which failed to achieve significance compared with the CTR [1.375 (1.037 to 2.561) vs 2.610 (1.751 to 4.075), 0.5-fold change; close to borderline significance ( p = .070)], EV MSC [1.375 (1.037 to 2.561) vs 2.915 (1.276 to 3.633), 0.6-fold change; p > .05], or GD2 tCAR MSC [1.375 (1.037 to 2.561) vs 2.318 (1.182 to 3.202), 0.6-fold change; p > .05] groups ( Fig. 6 c).
3.6 Surgical indicators: surgery R0 resection rate, sphincter preservation rate, and surgery complication rate 4 RCTs ( 11 – 14 ) reported surgery R0 resection rates for assessment; there were similarities between the SCRT and LCCRT arms [RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.98, 1.04), P = 0.55; I 2 = 0%; a fixed-effect model was utilized, shown in Figure 8 ], which were close to borderline significance.