“nominally significant”

In a replication study of the 18 novel loci, findings from the HF GWAS in the GBMI multi-ancestry excluding UK Biobank indicate 33.3% (6 of 18) of variants are significant ( p value <0.05/18), 61.1% (11 of 18) are nominally significant ( p value <0.05), and 100% have a beta estimate that is directionally concordant with our meta-analysis (Supplementary Data 20 ).

Weak evidence: nominally significant associations (p < 0.05); v.

We found that four SNPs showed nominally significant associations at P <0.05 for rs26232 ( C5orf30 ), rs2073838 ( SLC22A4 ), rs11676922 ( AFF3 ), and rs7528684 ( FCRL3 ).

This resulted in 62 nominally significant associations ( P value < 0.05 for either logistic regression or Fisher’s exact test) out of 543 possible genotype combinations (Supplemental Table S4).

By removing each SNP from the MR analysis sequentially, if the association is no longer nominally significant ( P > 0.05) with the SNP removed, this indicates that a particular SNP is driving the association.

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

The only nominally significant ( p < 0.05) difference among the randomization groups was for height, which was highest in the metformin group.

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 ).

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.

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

Of the 87 associations, 79 are with markers present in two or more populations and of these, 19 show nominally significant heterogeneity ( P < 0.05).

In total, 116 associations were identified to be associated with AF at the nominally significant level ( p < 0.05, Supplementary Table S4 ).

SAS (v9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used for the statistical analyses with a nominally significant level of P <0.05.

While the EBL, preoperative Hb level, and changes between pre- and postoperative Hb levels were nominally significant ( p < 0.05), their P values were higher than the adjusted P values (0.003); therefore, the results were not significant.

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 ).

Plasma NFL alone (Pathway 3) showed nominally significant mediation effects for ADAS13, CDRSB, MEM, and LAN (total indirect effect: all uncorrected P < 0.05) ( Figure 2IV .A, B; Table S9); however, after FDR correction, only the mediation effect on MEM remained significant ( P < 0.05).

Three MR models (IVW, weighted median, and GSMR) demonstrated nominally significant ( p < 0.05) causal effect of IPF on CAD, with the estimated liability-scale odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.08 to 1.38 (Table 2 ).

Multivariable modelling and the relations between predictor variables All predictor variables having shown nominally significant (p < 0.05) effects on hand preference in univariable testing (i.e. all but maternal smoking) were then included in the multivariable analysis, using general linear modelling (Methods), with hand preference as the dependent variable.

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

Ingenuity pathway analysis We utilized QIAGEN’s Ingenuity Pathway Analysis software 39 to determine potential upstream regulators and downstream biological functions of keloid-associated predicted gene expression, using nominally significant ( p < 0.05) GPGE results across the four meta-analyses.

Resulting group-level oscillations were nominally significant (G-cosinor p < 0.05) in 5.9% to 85.8% of ROIs across seven of the nine MRI metrics (Supplementary Table 4 ).

We find that 2/6 nominally significant relationships show evidence of replication, with the same direction of effect ( P < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction, linear regressions).

We report nominally significant associations ( p < 0.05) and FDR-corrected p-values.

Moreover, sensitivity gene-burden tests considering only those additional carriers identified by WGS (that is, not identified by WES data), 16 of the 23 gene masks with at least five carriers showed a nominally significant association ( P < 0.05) with the target phenotype, indicating that the additional coding variants identified by WGS are likely to be functionally relevant.

When all eight nominally significant SNPs were included in a multiple Cox regression analysis ( n = 5,164), they all remained significant ( P < 0.05) ( Table 3 ).