“nominally significant”

The eosinophils, lymphocytes, and WBC levels showed nominally significant associations with BMI (ps < 0.05), but these associations did not survive the Bonferroni correction.

We used whole exome sequencing (WES) to examine the cumulative effect of coding variants in each gene on risk of complicated SAB in a discovery set of patients, and then evaluated the nominally significant genes in a replication set of patients using custom-capture sequencing.

A p value less than 0.05 was considered to be nominally significant.

A single variant and gene burden analysis revealed some nominally significant results of potential interest for SORL1 and DNAJC6 genes.

While in Study 2, the Morning start group showed increased activation compared to the Varying start group at a nominally significant level in regions with pain (right precentral gyrus, right supplementary motor area) and sensory processing (bilateral paracentral lobule) functions.

Single findings for longevity and EAA were nominally significant in PGS analyses and sign tests.

We examined SNPs within nominally significant pathways using linear mixed models to estimate their contribution to overall BMI heritability.

Of the 85 variants tested, only 1 showed a rise to a nominally significant P value, highlighting a complete lack of support for the validity of hypothesis that any of the variants previously reported in scores of publications are associated with acute coronary syndromes [9] , [11] .

This study was of similar design, but with a much larger cohort (N = 1996); among 34 variants comprising the PRS, the odds ratio point estimate was positive in only 24, and only 8 showed a nominally significant association with GDM.

Association between SNPs and Traits of Interest Based on the results of the 2007 year group (Population 1) GWA analysis, 16 nominally significant SNPs were selected for genotyping in the 1999 year group (Population 2).

Findings were considered ‘nominally significant’ if corresponding p values were ⩽0.05 but >0.01.

A commonly employed threshold for genome-wide significance is a p -value <5 × 10 −8 , corresponding to a Bonferroni correction applied to a nominally significant p -value of 0.05 for 1,000,000 tests (i.e., =0.05/1,000,000).

Discussion The present study indicates that CILP2-rs10401969, GRK5-rs10886471, CDKAL1-rs10946398, IGF2BP2-rs1470579, TLE1-rs2796441, PROX1-rs340874, GATAD2A-rs3794991, HHEX-rs5015480, TSPAN8/LGR5-rs7961581, and ZFAND3-rs9470794 showed nominally significant interactions with prenatal exposure to famine in type 2 diabetes risk.

A large number of SNPs may be tested within the same study for their association with a disease, and this generates many nominally significant findings that are actually false positives.

In the third step, we performed the same forward selection procedure described in step 1 for the gene sets that remained nominally significant after step 2.

In our cell type-adjusted model, FLT1 and LEP remained only nominally significant whereas ENG did not meet the nominal significance threshold.

Nevertheless, we did observe more nominally significant and statistically significant differences in the relative abundance of bacterial taxa in the postweaning piglets and sows, respectively, between two types of farms.

We observed that activating KRAS-G12V mutation was associated with resistance to platinum and topoisomerase inhibitors and showed a nominally significant correlation with vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor) ( Figures S3 B and S3C).

p ‐Values <.05 were regarded as nominally significant. 3.

Two‐sided P ‐values <0.05 were considered nominally significant.

rs1571942 and rs12219125 at PLXDC2 locus showed nominally significant (<0.05) association with SDR in the same direction as previous report, as did rs1801282 in PPARG gene with MDR.

The benefit was nominally significant in the trial with dapagliflozin but not in the trial with empagliflozin.

For the top signal, ARID5B , the associations with carotid plaque were consistent in direction and nominally significant across subgroups of age ( < or ≥ 65 years), sex, and statin use (Fig. 1e ).

In the Gansu cohort, numerically larger estimates were observed for several symptoms, although these associations should be interpreted cautiously because they were nominally significant before multiple-testing correction.

The apparent differences in significance across strata are likely related to sample size and event distribution, and multiple subgroup comparisons may also yield nominally significant findings.