>Even those who had coronary artery disease at baseline showed a marginally significant benefit (0.50 [0.24-1.06]; p = 0.07).

This statement is wrong on multiple levels, I can't believe Nature would not catch that in the abstract.

1. They don't clarify if they are referencing statistical significance;
2. It is not significant at p = 0.07
3. It is likely not even near significant if they accounted for multiple comparisons (p-hacking).
4. Under the hypothesis test framework, things can't be marginally significant. It is either significant or it isn't.