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

As shown in online supplemental table S4 , the effect allele frequencies in the in-house controls and ORs were generally comparable with those obtained by using the 60KJPN as controls ( online supplemental table S2 ), except that the low frequency allele rs9290877C at LPP showed higher ORs and nominally significant association when the in-house controls were used.
Moreover, when the difference in PTI (healthy side minus affected side) for each plantar region was calculated and compared between the two groups, nominally significant differences were observed for the lateral sole (mean difference: 1.16 N·s/cm2, 95% CI: 0.08 to 2.24, Cohen’s d = 0.958) and entire sole (mean difference: 0.53 N·s/cm2, 95% CI: -0.11 to 1.17, Cohen’s d = 0.718) before correction for multiple comparisons ( P = 0.037 and P = 0.048, respectively; Table 5 ; Fig. 5 ).
In the DISCOVERY trial, genotypes of 2 SNP s in the GNAS gene were nominally significant in the prospective screening and significantly associated with VT when viewed as recessive traits in post hoc analyses ( TT vs CC / CT in c.393C>T: HR 1.42 [ CI 1.11‐1.80], P =0.005; TT vs CC / CT in c.2273C>T: HR 1.57 [ CI 1.18‐2.09], P =0.002).
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.
Single marker analysis Allele and genotype frequency comparisons between APACG patients and controls demonstrated nominally significant differences with p values of 0.024 and 0.028, respectively, for the C/T polymorphism at intron 1 ( rs1157699 ), but this significance was lost after Bonferroni correction (corrected p value 0.144 and 0.168, respectively).
Therefore, the predictive multivariable model included all 12 variables that exhibited a nominally significant association with PD risk within the unadjusted regression analysis, excluding coffee consumption due to its high collinearity with smoking and adding the age at baseline and gender variables as covariates ( Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 8 ).