“nominally significant”

Nominally significant association ( P <0.05) was found with 18 SNPs, in three main clusters across three adjacent genes SLCO3A1 , ST8SIA2 , and C15orf32 ( Table 1 ).

Polymorphisms in IL8, HIF1A, NR1lA, and VEGFA showed nominally significant associations ( P ≤ 0.05) with PFS and RR when compared with the wild-type genotypes.

Interestingly, SCZ showed a nominally significant proportion of caQTL-mediated heritability in LCLs (p<0.05, MESC), consistent with the hypothesis that B cells may play some role in SCZ pathogenesis ( Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, 2014 ; van Mierlo et al., 2019 ).

Variable Selection Based on linear mixed models including the factors of time, age at enrollment, sex, and stimulus version, 23 speech variables from the picture description task showed nominally significant ( P < 0.05) effects of time at the group level.

Among 204 exploratory pairwise correlations tested, 10 were nominally significant (p < 0.05).

Briefly, it performs a gene-based association using MAGMA [ 26 ] and then performs an enrichment analysis for each gene feature and those that are nominally significant are retained ( p < 0.05).

Although the association between rs4916251 and AAA was only nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in one of the cohorts tested (the AC), it is important to note that the AC was the largest study with the greatest statistical power, and that the meta-analysis estimate showed little evidence of heterogeneity ( I 2 = 13%).

5 A), while Hannum’s IEAA, Zhang’s EEAA, and raw epiTOC were only nominally significant ( p value < 0.05).

While the 19 exome-wide significant genes were not significantly associated (all p > 4.38 × 10 −4 , Bonferroni adjustment for 19 unique genes × 6 phenotypes) with any other tissue-specific fat components, we observed that nominally significant associations ( p < 0.05) generally shared the expected direction of effect on the primary and supplemental phenotypes ( Figures 2 and S3 ).

Among 41 edges showing nominally significant group differences, one edge remained significant after correction for multiple comparisons (p < .05, adjusted using FDR).

Finally, we used the excess significance test to evaluate whether the observed number of studies in the meta-analysis that presented a nominally significant result ( P -value < 0.05) was different from the expected number of studies with significant results [ 22 ].

Results nominally significant at two-sided P < 0.05 were cited.

( 2010 ) also found a SNP in KCNMA1 was nominally significant ( p < 0.05) for early-onset alcohol dependence in a family-based association analysis.

Nominally significant findings ( P < .05) that did not meet these thresholds were reported cautiously.

The MR-Egger (SIMEX) method yielded nominally significant ( P < 0.05) causal effects ( P = 0.032).

Nominally significant items/reasons (P < 0.05) are highlighted.

Most of the association information derives from the main effect test, but the intervention interaction tests have rather different P -values across these SNPs, with rs7705343 having nominally significant ( P < 0.05) interactions with each of E-alone, DMQ, and CaD, while interactions in relation to rs4415084 are not significant for any of the interventions.

Results: Among the 5 subjects, there were 132 nominally significant correlations (p< 0.05) between mRNA expression and MRI activity.

The majority of associations were nominally significant (raw P <0.05), and many also remained FDR significant.

There was predominantly a candidate gene approach using common alleles, which despite small sample sizes (median 93 [IQR 40–222]) with no trend to an increase over time, generated a high proportion (74.5%) of nominally significant (p<0.05) reported associations suggesting the possibility of significance-chasing bias.

236 (68.6%) of these 344 CpGs were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) in our study, while 22 (6.4%) remained significant after accounting for the multiple tests of the replication effort ( p < 0.05/344 ~ 0.0001) (Table 2 ).

Other ROIs with nominally significant causal effects (P <0.05) included SA of the caudal middle frontal on BIP, and the SA of the four regions (medial orbitofrontal, lateral orbitofrontal, inferior temporal and lateral occipital) on MDD.

A score of + 1 was assigned if the protein showed positive and nominally significant ( p < 0.05) association with the disease, and +2 if the association was significant after multiple test correction ( FDR-adjusted p < 0.05).

Candidate gene approach None of the imputed variants previously reported as gait speed candidate genes such as ACE , ACTN3, COMT and APOE reached a nominally significant (p<0.05) threshold ( Supplementary Table 3 ).

In meta-analyzed results with independent target samples, the derived agnostic polygenic risk score was never associated with phobic anxiety at nominally significant (p<.05) thresholds for any of the tests.