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

When subjected to multiple testing correction via the false discovery rate approach, none of these associations achieved statistical significance (all FDR > 0.05), indicating that these findings represent preliminary, hypothesis-generating signals. Robustness Assessment of Forward Analysis Sensitivity testing confirmed the stability of these nominally significant findings.
Nevertheless, nine of them (rs541503 ( PHGDH ), rs715 ( CPS1 ), rs272893 ( SLC22A4 / OCTH1 ), rs9393903 ( ELOVL2 ), rs3204953 ( REV3L ), rs603424 ( SCD ), rs174550 ( FADS1 ), rs499974 ( MOGAT2 ), rs7157785 ( SGPP1 )) showed nominally significant association with diabetes in published data from bigger GWAS consortia for type 2 diabetes (up to 110.452 individuals) or exome array analyses (up to 75.670 individuals) of which two (rs174550 ( FADS1 ) and rs3204953 ( REV3L )) were significant after correction for multiple testing by FDR (Table 3 ).
In addition, recent studies have found that sets of SNPs of nominal significance might be used to identify genomic regions that are over-represented across independent GWAS 97 , 98 —here as well, cell-adhesion genes, such as cadherins, are prominent, although only nominally significant in the individual studies.
The genetics of addiction-a translational perspective.
Transl Psychiatry · 2012 · PMC3410620
However, as the outcome disparities between ethnicities could not be fully explained, although only nominally significant, and the ethnicities within the European pediatric population are underrepresented in previous studies regarding MAFLD, more follow up studies are needed focused on the ethnic disparities in risk for MAFLD within these populations.
None of the transcripts associated with smoking status in our study were identified in a previous whole-blood transcriptome meta-analysis, including more than 10,000 individuals, of current versus never smokers [ 35 ], and none of the top 10 hits from that study were nominally significant in our study.