“nominally significant”

The conditional analysis shows that 45 (including 42 genes) out of the total 74 (~60.8%) unique associations are still nominally significant when conditioned on known GWAS variants ( p < 0.05, Supplementary Table S4 ).

However, in successive models of Model 3 and 4 (addition of POAG established and suspected risk factors), and Model 5 (further adjust for co-morbidities), we observed that while no metabolite exhibited significance at the NEF < 0.2 level (except for LPC(16:0) in Model 3), all were nominally significant and the direction of associations for the metabolites was similar ( p < 0.05).

Although hypofractionation (hypofractionation or extreme hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation) was nominally significant for rectal bleeding on univariate analysis ( P = .05), it did not remain significant independently of the inclusion of the BED V55Gy cutoff point (OR, 3.6; P = .08).

Overall, we found nominally significant associations ( P -value < 0.05) with exons common to the intermediate and short transcripts (Table 2 ).

In the meta- analysis of pilots, flight attendants, and nurses ( n = 59), three of these CpG sites presented nominally significant association ( p < .05) so that cg04188238 and cg12896146 showed higher methylation levels in association with the A allele of rs12506228 (cg04188238 β = 0.148, p = .0075, p Bonferroni = .114; cg12896146 β = 0.15, p = .019, p Bonferroni = .264) and cg10063179 lower methylation levels (β = −0.141, p = .0048, p Bonferroni = .074) ( Figure 4 , Supplementary Table S6).

Model 4 constrains the MZ pair correlation to be twice the correlation for DZ and sister pairs combined, and the comparison of the log-likelihoods with those of Model 2 shows that, except for Cirrocumulus , there was at least nominally significant evidence that the MZ correlations were more than twice the corresponding correlations for DZ and sister pairs combined (all p ≤ 0.05).

All showed a concordant effect direction between the GWAS prospective and GWAS retrospective (p=0·0005, binomial sign test), with six loci nominally significant (GWAS prospective p<0·050) and one significant after Bonferroni correction for the 12 loci (rs3851357, GWAS prospective p=0·0035).

Nominally significant ( P < 0.05) associations were observed at nine SNPs in a direction consistent with the established association.

A few traits exhibited nominally significant associations ( p < 0.05), but the effect directions were inconsistent across traits and sensitivity analyses (weighted median, MR Egger) did not uniformly support these findings.

For the differentially expressed proteins (DEPs), an adjusted p-value<0.05 (Benjamini-Hochberg) was considered statistically significant, unless stated that nominally significant proteins are shown (p-value<0.05).

All 15 representative traits remained nominally significant (p<0.05) and showed consistent effect directions between marginal and conditional analyses ( Supplementary file 1 ).

Nominally significant (P< 0.05) results were included only when significant (P< 0.01) miRNAs were identified in other tissues.

After these corrections, the average reference allele frequency at all heterozygous sites was 0.5, and 50.02% of nominally significant ( P < 0.05) allele-specific variants favored the reference allele ( Fig. 1 B).

We defined this set as cis -eQTLs identified in LCLs or transformed fibroblasts in GTEx ( FDR < 0.05), which were not even nominally significant ( P > 0.05) in GTEx breast tissue.

Relaxing the thresholds identified additional genera that showed nominally significant association with PCo1 (P ≤ .05).

Accordingly, functional enrichment analyses in these short-exposure groups focused on nominally significant genes ( p -value <0.05) to identify potentially relevant biological processes, without attempting high-confidence regulatory network construction or hub gene identification.

Interestingly, a previous GWAS of bipolar disorder in Norwegian individuals followed by replication in Icelandic samples also found nominally significant ( P < 0.05) markers located in this gene area 39 .

A total of 14 genes involved in the Wnt/β-catenin canonical pathway demonstrated significant differential expression when adjusting the FC barrier to ±2 at a nominally significant p -value ( p < 0.05) and multiple testing correction (FDR < 0.05).

Despite the considerably smaller sample size, 71% of the lead SNPs from the pooled discovery meta-analysis were at least nominally significant in the replication dataset ( P < 0.05) and there was a high positive correlation between the effect size estimates of the discovery stage and the replication dataset (Pearson’s r = 0.94, P < 2.2 × 10 −16 ; Extended Data Fig. 6a ).

While the association was still nominally significant ( p < 0.05), it was no longer significant with the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure.

Variants with FDR < 0.05 in at least one source were confirmed as nominally significant ( p < 0.05) with consistent effect direction in the other available data sources.

To observe overall genetic control of gene expression in a disease context, we intersected all cis-eQTL results with the nominally significant GWAS SNPs ( p < 0.05) [ 8 ] and plotted the p values from the two sets (Fig. 2 ).

Briefly, drugs were ranked by their frequency of being at least nominally significant ( p < 0.05) across the four time windows and eight models ( Table 4 ).

Except for one variant located at 37,927,476 bp, all MICALL1 variants included in this test have MAF < 0.005 and were protective (OR = 0.26 to 0.41) and nominally significant ( p < .05) (Table 5 ).

To avoid complex causality relationships, we excluded the results that showed a nominally significant MR estimate in the other direction ( P < 0.05).