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

To estimate effect modification by sex or pubertal status, interaction terms of the respective SDQ (sub‐)scale separately with sex or puberty onset were included in the adjusted models and followed by stratified analyses for these two factors if the interaction term was nominally significant.
To assess the sensitivity of pain DMRs to methylation quantification of MeDIP-seq data, we also performed analyses controlling for CpG density 29 and MeDIP-seq fragment size in the discovery sample ( Supplementary Figs S7 and S8 ), and found that the majority of top-ranked pain DMRs remained nominally significant, although their relative rank could change.
Of these 43 signals, 4 signals were independently identified in both EAS-ancestry and EUR-ancestry cohorts; 27 were only identified in EAS-ancestry cohorts, 9 of which were also nominally significant in EUR-ancestry cohorts; 2 were only identified in EUR-ancestry cohorts, both of which were also nominally significant in EAS-ancestry cohorts; 10 were identified only after trans-ethnic meta-analysis ( Figure 4 B; Table S5 ).
We caution that these findings, while nominally significant, neglect plausible ancestry-differential COVID-19 infection incidence and/or ascertainment in our NYC cohort (which may strongly confound HLA frequency comparison), as well as intrinsic imprecision of diplotype inference from RNA data, linkage among class I HLA genes (and other major histocompatibility complex loci), and/or other sequence variation distinctive to specific subtypes of surveyed haplogroups.
We found nominally significant differences in two variables: During pregnancy, the feasibility study mothers had lived in more overcrowded conditions (mean crowding index, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.58–1.92) compared to the larger SPS cohort [(mean crowding index, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.55–1.59) (effect size, 0.20)] and had scored higher on the Edinburgh Depression Scale [(mean, 14.10; CI, 13.00–15.21) versus (mean, 12.88; CI, 12.74–13.03) effect size 0.21] (NB: a score of 13 or above indicates a high likelihood of depression).