Barely Significant
← all phrases

“nominally significant”

7,733 sentences · 7,733 papers · 10,034 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.08

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

Two other neuroimaging phenotypes showed nominally significant effects on depression, including higher MD in the ATR for MR-Egger (tMD-ATR; β = 0.107, p for MR-Egger = 0.028, p FDR = 0.166; however, the Egger intercept was not significant, p FDR = 0.432, Supplementary Fig. 11 , Supplementary Data 6 and Supplementary Table 3 ) and ICVF in SLF (tICVF-SLF; β = −0.025, p = 0.030, p FDR = 0.179 for IVW).
Nominally significant interaction was observed with respect to the cardiovascular death or hospitalized HF outcome for several subgroups, including patients with higher versus lower body mass index, lower versus higher baseline glycohemoglobin, with versus without background use of diuretic therapy, and with versus without background metformin use (all P interaction >0.02; Figure 3 ).
Thus, P<2.26×10-4 (2.26×10-4 = 0.05/ (138+83); The number 138 indicates the total count of cases with or without global weighted SA/TH of cortical structure, while 83 represents the total volume of cortical structure) was regarded as significant, whereas P < 0.05 was considered nominally significant and suggestive. 2.4 Ethics As a meta-analysis of previously published GWAS results involving no new human subjects research, this study did not require separate ethical clearance. 3 Results Ultimately, 15 SNPs associated with presbycusis were retained for MR analysis.
When we examined below the top 25 associations on our list of nominally significant GEE results for various SCA phenotypes, there were significant associations with multivariable-adjusted CAC for several SNPs on chromosome 9, including three SNPs (rs10511701, rs1556516 and rs1537371; p-values for association 1.1 × 10 -4 , 8.8 × 10 -5 , and 1.7 × 10 -4 , respectively) lying within a 15 kB region implicated in recent GWAS's for coronary heart disease.
We first derived the proportion of interaction effect nominally significant at type I error rate (alpha) threshold of 0.05 among bins of SNPs grouped based on their marginal association (i.e., we derive the proportion of SNPs with interaction p value below 0.05 and p value for marginal effect in bins [1, 0.1], [0.1, 0.01], [0.01, 0.001], etc).