“nominally significant”

A nominally significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed ( P = 0.000), with events occurring in the DA (3/132, 2.3%) and TA (5/21, 23.8%) subgroups.

Additionally, response speeds differed by emotion category, with fear slower than anger ( t = 53.94, p < 0.001, d = 0.91) and happiness ( t = 55.17, p < 0.001, d = 0.93), and a small, but nominally significant difference between anger and happiness ( t = 2.25, p < 0.0 5, d = 0.04), with happiness faster than anger.

In terms of p-value, 25 out of 58 tests are nominally significant ( p < 2.2 e − 308), with 6 out of 58 being significant after adjusting for 58 tests, including variants in TCF7L2 and age for Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), variants in SMOX and sex for High light scatter reticulocyte count, Reticulocyte percentage, and Immature reticulocyte fraction, variants in CSP1 and sex for Mean platelet (thrombocyte) volume.

Meta-analyses of cis -eQTLs for brain-related traits show at least one variant in the ANKDD1B gene to be highly significant in the cortex ( P = 3.18×10 -110 ; Table F in S1 Table ) and nominally significant in the hippocampus ( P =.003; Table G in S1 Table ) [ 26 ].

Under an additive model [ 48 ], a nominally significant positive association with FG was observed: per increment of additional G allele at rs560887 in G6PC2 , FG was 0.070 mmol/l (95% CI: 0.060, 0.079, p = 4.635e-50) higher, with heterogeneity observed (I 2 = 72%, 95% CI: 60%, 80%; H 2 = 2.56).

The largest data freeze to date ( https://www.covid19hg.org ) does not include rs4702 within its summary statistics; however, we note an excess of nominally significant genetic variants within the FURIN cis -region ( Table S1 ; binomial test p = 3.57 × 10 −31 ) comparing individuals hospitalized from COVID-19 with the general population ( Initiative, 2020 ).

Survival analysis confirmed the highly significant impact of IL-6 (P = 8.56e−23) on the survival of COVID-19 patients and also identified a nominally significant effect of IL-2R on survival (P = 0.0003, Figure S1 , Table S1 ).

Global enrichment analysis identified a significant overrepresentation of nominally significant interactions with vitamin D deficiency ( p < 2.2 × 10 − 16).

Our results indicated that 48.1% ( n = 11,422, P < 0.05) of the examined drift-CpGs exhibited a nominally significant difference (OR = 5.0, Fisher's test, P < 2.2 × 10 −16 ) between these two time points.

While we did observe multiple cis -eQTL genes for some top candidate SNPs, such as rs73551707, these were nominally significant compared with the nearest target gene, BMP1 ( P =1.45E−15 in aorta; 1.10E−14 in mammary artery; Supplementary Fig. 19 ; Supplementary Data 12 ).

In addition, from the Type 2 Diabetes Knowledge Portal ( http://www.type2diabetesgenetics.org/ , last accessed on December 18, 2018), we detected nominally significant associations between the variant allele of N4BP2L1 rs497255 and BMI in the GIANT UK Biobank GWAS (p = 1.6 × 10 −15 ).

A total of 148 pathways were nominally significant for both traits ( Figure 2 ), with overlap greater than that expected by chance (hypergeometric p = 2.6 × 10 −15 ).

The final model generated by SRL included gene-environment interaction terms for ten lifestyle factors ( S10 Table , supplementary Data), of which eight were nominally significant: alcohol intake frequency ( p = 2.82*10 −15 ), usual walking pace ( p = 1.55*10 −14 ), frequency of 10+ minute walks ( p = 6.26*10 −4 ), smoking status (p = 1.45*10 −3 ), frequency of vigorous exercise ( p = 2.28*10 −3 ), number of vehicles in household (p = 1.03*10 −2 ), TDI (p = 3.02*10 −2 ) and frequency of tiredness/lethargy (p = 3.87*10 −2 ) and.

All exposures showed at least nominally significant associations with increased mortality, most significantly for SBP (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P = 1.9 × 10 −14 ); the association of WMH with mortality was no longer significant after adjusting for educational level or interim stroke status (eTables 9 and 10 in Supplement 1 ).

Six signals replicated with Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (p ≤ 0.05/61 = 8.2 × 10 −4 ; Figure 3 B) and we observed 7.2× more nominally significant signals than expected by chance (22 signals; two-sided binomial test: p = 7.8 × 10 −14 ; Figure S3 G).

Furthermore, the number of independent nominally significant loci at Stage 2 (N = 60, (13.5%)) was significantly greater than expected by chance (p = 4.6×10 −12 ).

Focusing on the subset of 66 genes with nominally significant PolyStrat scores, NRXN1 had the largest difference between cases and ExAC ( χ 2 = 82.3, df = 16, uncorrected p = 6.37 × 10 −11 ; corrected p = 1.27 × 10 −6 ) and no difference between controls and ExAC ( χ 2 = 10.5, df = 16, uncorrected p = 0.84) (Fig. 4d ).

The sex-stratified meta-analyses (Supplementary Data 4 ) showed nominally significant sex-heterogeneity ( P het = 0.02) for the lead SNP (rs6471570) in the CYP11B1 locus in boys ( β = 0.20; P = 1.7 × 10 −10 ) and girls ( β = 0.10; P = 0.001).

All traits showed higher-than-expected overlap via binomial testing (CAC: 102 nominally significant in CAC GWAS/1074 nominally significant in our DGEA; CAD: 145/1077; cIMT: 98/1077; all p < 2.3 × 10 −10 ).

With respect to loci identified by GWI candidate gene studies [ 50 – 52 ] and the previous GWI genome-wide association study (GWAS) (Table S7) [ 16 ], we observed nominally significant interaction with exposure to biological/chemical or warfare agents for GWAS-identified locus rs142258944*C (G×E beta = 0.625, joint- p = 6.04 × 10 − 10 , interaction- p = 0.005) and candidate locus PON1 rs662*C (G×E beta = 0.345, joint- p = 0.036, interaction- p = 0.012).

Although the observed sign concordance of 52% is not significantly different from a random pattern ( P = 0.40), we find 3.23 times more SNPs in this set of 506 SNPs that are nominally significant for SZ than expected given the distribution of the P values in the SZ GWAS results (raw enrichment P = 6.87 × 10 −10 ).

Assuming the effect size in the most precise study to be a plausible effect, 919 out of 4,445 nominally significant results were expected versus 1,719 observed ( p <10 −9 ).

Block H1.2 was highly significant in Stage 2 data ( p = 1.12 × 10 –9 ), while both blocks H1.1 and H1.3 were nominally significant ( p < 0.002 and p < 0.0003, respectively).

Hits were declared nominally significant for p -values ≤10 −8 and suggestive for p -values ranging from 10 −6 to 10 −8 ( Material and Methods , Figure S11 ).

PTPRD Many of the GWA studies discussed previously in this review identified clusters of SNPs with nominally significant associations (10 −2 > p > 10 −8 ) with drug dependence and addiction-related phenotypes [ 6 – 8 , 85 , 88 , 91 , 92 , 117 – 120 ].