That's part of the confidence interval. The adjusted p-value is 0.08. However, the cut-off of 0.05 is just a convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse

That's part of the confidence interval. The adjusted p-value is 0.08. However, the cut-off of 0.05 is just a convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_p-values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_p-values. I'd think of this as a grey scale, where 0.08 is roughly in the significance range. The null hypothesis is that it's highly unlikely VitD has an effect, and we should expect to see that substantiated often in tests. How often? 95% of the time. 5% of the time we can expect to see spurious results from our simplistic model of random processes. Upshot, it's a small change to move those numbers to 92% vs. 8%. In this context, it's fine to say "this was a small pilot that directionally shows we should do a much bigger test", which is what they're now doing.