“nominally significant”

Different from the main analyses, the stability path for internalizing problems across T4 to T5 was significant, as was a negative effect from attention T3 to internalizing problems T4 for both males and females (note that both effects were nominally significant [ p < .06] in the main analyses).

The C/T SNP at -521 showed an additive influence on executive attention as shown in Figure 1B where the mean executive attention scores of the C/C and T/T genotypic classes showed a nominally significant difference (P = 0.06).

Post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, which included patients with the highest tertile of triglycerides (≥204 mg/dL), showed a trend toward benefit from fenofibrate therapy, although this finding was nominally significant (primary outcome 12.4% in the fenofibrate group vs 17.6% in the placebo arm, p = 0.06) [ 119 ].

Nominally significant parental genetic effects were found between the SNPs rs11191548 ( CYP17A1 ) (paternal, β = 2.78±1.49, P = 6.1×10 −2 for SBP and β = 3.60±1.24, P = 3.7×10 −3 for DBP), rs17367504 ( MTHFR ) (paternal, β = 2.42±0.93, P = 9.3×10 −3 for SBP and β = 1.89±0.80, P = 1.8×10 −2 for DBP and maternal, β = -1.32±0.60, P = 2.9×10 −2 and β = -1.97±0.77, P = 1.0×10 −2 , for SBP and DBP respectively) and child blood pressure.

Gender was also controlled for in subsequent analyses as it was nominally significant ( p = 0.061) and previous literature has suggested a gender effect in relation to psychological distress [ 2 ].

We found a nominally significant difference of expression of EVC in the cerebellum when participants had different genotypes of rs6446395 from GTEx Cohort ( p = 6.35 × 10 −2 ).

The logistic regression analysis adjusted by gender and age showed a nominally significant association for rs2241766 GG+GT genotype ( P = 0.065, OR = 1.55) and rs1501299 GG genotype in recessive model (OR = 1.54, P = 0.066).

The lowest, marginally nominally significant, p -values were observed for the association of the risk allelic score with body mass index ( p = 0.067) and waist circumstance ( p = 0.065).

The model was significant (R 2 = 0.204, Adjusted R 2 = 0.165, F (3,62) = 5.29, p = 0.003) with a nominally significant contribution from sexual abuse (β = −0.21, t = −1.85, p = 0.069).

Notably, our leading SNP rs6686722 tends towards a nominally significant association in the PGC-iPSCYH meta-analysis ( p = 0.07).

Similarly, alcohol and cannabis use in the last 2 months of pregnancy showed associations with Tourette syndrome (OR = 1.72, P = 0.01 and OR = 4.30, P = 0.03 respectively) and somewhat weaker associations with Tourette syndrome/chronic tic disorder in the same direction, whereas parity showed consistent association with both Tourette syndrome and Tourette syndrome/chronic tic disorder, although only the Tourette syndrome/chronic tic disorder association remained nominally significant in the final model (OR = 0.57, P = 0.07 for Tourette syndrome; OR = 0.66, P = 0.03 for Tourette syndrome/chronic tic disorder).

We then selected those 4 common variants from the replication cohort and tested their association with TDP-C vs controls and found that all 4 SNPs were associated with TDP-C vs controls in the replication cohort and had the same direction of effect (rs113772135 was nominally significant at p = 0.07) ( Table 3 ).

After adjusting for sex, this association remained nominally significant (HR = 4.48 [0.90–22.23], p = 0.07), consistent with our findings showing MS3 as at higher risk of MI (Fig. 4D ).

The joint association between this mixture of the PFAS compounds and asthma status was not statistically significant ( P = 0.67, OR = 1.00), in line with the absence of nominally significant associations for any individual compound (smallest P = 0.07 for perfluorobutanesulfonic acid).

After adjusting for FDR, only the interaction between fruits and abdominal obesity was nominally significant in the model of valerate (FDR-adjusted p -value = 0.07).

Results Our primary analysis revealed a nominally significant protective effect (beta = -20.90938, p = 0.070218).

There was a nominally significant correlation between the expression of EZH2 and H3K27me3 ( P = 0.071).

In these analyses, the B1–cfPWV estimate remained inverse after additional adjustment for vaccine doses and SARS-CoV-2 ELISA variables (β = −0.508; 95% CI: −0.975 to −0.042; p = 0.033; FDR q = 0.109), whereas the B6–cfPWV estimate was attenuated and was no longer nominally significant (β = −0.275; 95% CI: −0.577 to 0.027; p = 0.074; FDR q = 0.147).

Interestingly, the atypical ether lipid, alkyldiacylglycerol [TG(O)] had nominally significant increases (1.34-fold increase, 1.04 − 1.73 95% CI, corrected p value = 7.62 × 10 −2 , uncorrected p-value 3.73 × 10 −2 , Fig. 1a ) in stark contrast to the large reductions in circulating triglyceride content (Fig. 1a ).

Comparison of the MF/F 400/10 combination with placebo showed a nominally significant relative reduction of 20.6% in the rate of mild, moderate, or severe exacerbations ( P = 0.079).

Three comparisons that were nominally significant without correction did not remain so after Holm adjustment: exercise frequency, U = 719.50, p = 0.079, rg = 0.29 (small); interference with social life, U = 750.50, p = 0.138, rg = 0.26 (small); and the Obligatory Exercise Questionnaire total score, U = 756.00, p = 0.138, rg = 0.25 (small).

The association between MBzP and hair products was nominally significant (p = 0.08; data not shown).

Within our stratified analysis by type of therapy, for anti-PD1/PD-L1 monotherapy, we observed an OR per SD of 1.25 (95% CI = 0.88−1.78, p = 0.21) for all-grade IMC, while a slightly stronger and nominally significant association was seen for severe IMC (OR per SD = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.96−2.25, p = 0.08).

Accounting for death as a competing event did not meaningfully change the results, except that the association between high cumulative total fruit intake in the midlife group and decreased risk of all-cause dementia was nominally significant (p = 0.08) (Supplemental Table 2).

However, when testing for equal association across AD and VaD/mixed dementia cases, the difference in risk across dementia types for Cer‐16 was nominally significant ( p = 0.08) (Table S6 ).