“nominally significant”

As for 14q21.3 and 17q21.31, none of the two top hits reported before were nominally significant in this study (rs7144383: p=0.181; rs17690703: p=0.639).

When analyses were adjusted for age, the association was not significant for rs9357152 but remained nominally significant for rs4243652 (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.94–1.52; p = 0.19 for rs9357152 with invasive cervical cancer, OR 2.72, 95%CI 1.11–6.67; p = 0.03 for rs4243652 with adenocarcinoma).

Notably, for each of the seven tasks where these nominally significant TDS elevations were seen, the behavior-task combinations involved were not enriched for behavioral scales showing a statistically significant SDB ( P > 0.2 in Fisher’s Exact tests for associations between whether a scale shows statistically significant SDB, Fig. 3a , and TDS, Fig. 4b , across seven tasks)—indicating that observing a difference in the mean score of a behavioral trait between sexes is not predictive of that trait showing a divergent BWAS map between sexes.

We identified a genome-wide significant association (p = 4.12 x 10 −07 , adjusted for multiple testing via permutations p = 0.027, see Methods ) on chromosome 15 (15:49–50 Mb; Fig 2 ), followed by two neighbouring haplotypes (15:46–47 Mb unadjusted p = 9.1 x 10 −6 ; 15:47–48 Mb unadjusted p = 1.43 x 10 −5 ) which, although also nominally significant, were not significant genome-wide after correction (15:46–47 Mb corrected p = 0.23; 15:47–48 Mb corrected p = 0.32).

Cyclophosphamide dose, which appeared nominally significant in the untransformed analysis ( Supplementary Table S1 ), was not replicated in the log-transformed model (β = −0.001, p = 0.235), suggesting that the original signal reflected the combined influence of AMH non-normality, regimen-structured collinearity, and the small number of cyclophosphamide-treated patients ( n = 12/75) rather than a true independent pharmacological effect.

Nominally significant factors ( p < 0.25) from univariate analyses were included in model selection (backward elimination, forward selection, and stepwise selection).

For instance, the first genome-wide significant association observed in the GWAS of COVID-19 susceptibility in Europeans with rs34338189 as lead variant is not even nominally significant in the last release (P = 0.25).

A subgroup analysis between first and second round associations did not show nominally significant differences ( Q (1) = 1.251; p = .263) between the two for the 2016/2017 season.

79 ), although neither signal was nominally significant ( P = 0 . 27 and P = 0 . 43 , respectively ).

While the association between DDC and fluid reasoning decline was nominally significant, it did not survive correction for multiple testing (Bonferroni p = 0.292).

Associations with gastric cancer for triglycerides (P = 0.061), LDL cholesterol (P = 0.35) and apoB (P = 0.48) weakened in multivariable analysis and were no longer even nominally significant, while the lack of association of gender and APOE ε4 with risk of gastric cancer remained unchanged (P ≥ 0.30).

We also detected the association with HLA-DQA2 in Leucegene, although it was only nominally significant (adjusted P = .34, nominal P = 2.2 × 10 −4 ).

While higher levels of ccf-mtDNA were observed in APOE-ε4 carrier, there were nominally significant increases of ccf-mtDNA in MCI ( P raw = 0.043) and MCI+rMDD groups ( P raw = 0.023) but not rMDD ( P = 0.35).

Nominally significant probes identified in childhood correlated at r = 0.004, p = 0.55 ( n = 23,764) with respective probes at birth.

TREX1 is another hit in the c-alpha test, although nominally significant (adj p -value = 0.56), and the signal is mainly driven by a 5′UTR and synonymous (p.Y232Y) variants ( Supplementary Tables S8a and S9 ).

Nor does the generalized model provide any support for nominally significant fixed effects in a model including random identity effects only ( asymmetry coefficient = −0.202 (0.362), F 1,128 = 0.31, P = 0.573; relatedness coefficient = 2.725 (3.640), F 1,114 = 0.56, P = 0.455).

Three of the four oncogenes were gained more frequently in the primary samples than in the metastatic samples; the comparisons for CCND1 (one-sided p < 0.015) and PRKAA1 (p < 0.026) were nominally significant, while those for LAMP3 (p < 0.609) and PROX1 (p < 0.053) were not significant.

The nominally significant associations of the upstream variants rs1338625 and rs6426870 were not supported by the combined analysis (P = 0.62, OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.92–1.05]; P = 0.82, OR 0.99 [95% CI 0.93–1.06], respectively); while the negative result for rs4657364 was confirmed (P = 0.45, OR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95–1.12]) (Tables S5-7, Additional file 1 ).

In the subgroup with chair stand sub‐score of ≤ 2 in SPPB, the LS mean (SE) difference compared with placebo in CFB to Month 6 was −0.025 (0.053) m/s and 0.090 (0.044) m/s in the 175‐ and 350‐mg BIO101 groups, respectively, statistically nominally significant for the latter ( p = 0.6355 and p = 0.0492, respectively) (Table 2 ).

For each of these domains, the difference in percentage of cases and controls reporting problems with worsening symptoms were not even nominally significant: 31.74% versus 23.08% (psychosocial; p = 0.743 by a Fisher test), 52.27% versus 66.67% (bone; p = 0.674 by a Fisher test), and 35.71% versus 16.67% (gastrointestinal; p = 0.285 by a Fisher test). 3.4 Ovarian outcomes Previous studies of girls and young women with CG have revealed the extraordinary prevalence of premature ovarian insufficiency in this population. 4 , 10 , 23 , 24 Here, we asked female participants about their current and prior outcomes related to ovarian function, and about any experiences with pregnancy.

In our sample, nominally significant associations were noted between C4A peripheral mRNA levels and PANSS general psychopathology as well as total symptoms severity, which corroborate prior evidence indicating a relationship between higher C4A expression levels in PBMCs and more severe psychotic symptomatology [ 21 ], albeit it should be stressed that our limited sample size could not permit definite conclusions.

We found that three SNPs in or near the CCR3 gene achieved nominally significant p values; a SNP rs13084656 , located in the promoter region, achieved a p value of 0.039; another SNP rs2157056 , located downstream of the gene, achieved a p value of 6.27×10 −3 ; a third SNP rs2373156 , located in the intronic region, achieved a p value of 0.050.

By contrast, the 13 proteins also nominally significant in serum revealed no significant difference between the groups after correcting for multiple testing.

Only nominally significant P-values were observed for C-C motif chemokine 28 (CCL28), C-C motif chemokine 4 (CCL4), monocyte chemoattractant protein-3 (MCP-3), and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA).

When leveraged correctly, the pedigree structure can help improve statistical power, but both small sample size and small effect size reduce power, such that not only is it more difficult to detect associations, but those associations that are nominally significant have a higher likelihood of being spurious.