“nominally significant”

These estimates proved valuable for interpreting the results, particularly for associations such as genus Alloprevotella and SA, which has a nominally significant P -value (.043) but limited power (53.9%).

However, given the total number of analyses made, the latter difference was only nominally significant.

63 Rheumatoid arthritis demonstrates weak and nonsignificant associations with coronary artery disease (−0.06 [0.08], P =0.438), but a moderate and nominally significant association with IMTmax.

In addition to these 20 markers, six markers from the Illumina BovineSNP50 BeadChip that were nominally significant ADG (4 were also nominally significant for ADFI) in the discovery population were also genotyped in the validation population of animals.

Analysis of individual drugs that were reported to be used during phototherapy by at least 20 patients showed a nominally significant association only for L-thyroxine ( Fig. 2 ).

Further nominally significant associations did not survive the correction for multiple testing based on Bonferroni corrections.

The absence of significant findings in this study may be due to primary neurometabolic disturbances showing rapid resolution ( Giza and Hovda, 2014 ), as we identified a nominally significant effect of days post-injury within the acute phase of injury.

Values of p < 0.05 were considered nominally significant; no multiplicity adjustment was conducted.

While DAPA‐HF trial showed a nominally significant reduction in cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality, EMPEROR‐Reduced and SOLOIST‐WHF did not.

Associations with a nominal P-value (P_HKSJ) < 0.05 but P_FDR ≥0.05 were considered nominally significant association.

Meanwhile P < 0.05 was regarded as nominally significant, suggesting potential causality between menstruation and CVD ( 36 ). 3.

The PRS for triglycerides had a nominally significant association that was not significant after Bonferroni correction.

For plasma pTau217, post-hoc analysis of the change from baseline with ACI-35.030 treatment, when compared to the corresponding change from baseline for the pooled placebo group, was nominally significant at weeks 31, 36, and 74 for the 900 μg dose and 10, 15, and 36 for the 1800 μg dose ( Fig. 3 and Table 6 ).

Tam 2.0 tool overrepresentation analysis [ 33 , 34 ] was also performed with all nominally significant DE miRNAs as inputs and the settings of all curated miRNAs as background, limited to a miRNA set size of two, including up- and down-regulated miRNA sets. 2.5.

Interestingly, while the sample sizes were much smaller for Asian individuals than for H/L and AA individuals, the transethnic meta-analysis of the PROX1 index (rs340874) was only nominally significant and directionally consistent in the Asian samples.

In order to identify novel associated loci, we considered the following steps (Figure 2 ): (1) we identified all loci that were statistically significant in the multi‐phenotype analysis ( p ‐value multivariate <1.85 x 10 −9 ) (significant loci); (2) among these, we identified all loci with a lead variant that was at least nominally significant for two of the individual datasets used in each combination of phenotypes (lead variant p ‐value univariate <.005) 30 , 31 , 32 (significant loci driven by more than one phenotype); (3) among the loci from step 2, we then narrowed it down to loci that were new for at least one of the ph

Conversely, findings with P < 0.05 but P FDR > 0.05 were categorized as nominally significant.

We identified a nominally significant negative interaction between these genetic risk factors, implying that the impact of PRS-IQ on ASD risk is attenuated in subjects with a high burden of CNVs, irrespective of their level of cognitive ability.

Furthermore, we tested multiple phenotypes and the associations for CAD and systolic blood pressure were only nominally significant (<0.05).

Most of the p-values for interaction between neighborhood groups and age and sex were not statistically significant, except for a nominally significant p-interaction between sex and neighborhood trajectories for all-cause mortality (0.004).

P ‐values larger than α but less than 0.05 were labelled as “nominally significant”.

This is consistent with results from the study of the sex-specific genetic architecture of high-level human complex traits [ 26 ], but is in contrast to the observation of a negative relationship in a review of other multiple species, which found that traits with large mean phenotypic differences across the sexes had small or negative genetic correlations [ 16 ]. To test if there was common functionality in the 100 probes with the most nominally significant deviation from r G =1, we performed a gene ontology (GO) analysis using the DAVID functional annotation tool.

Results were stratified into significance tiers: highly significant (FDR < 0.05), nominally significant (FDR < 0.10), and exploratory (FDR < 0.25), given the nature of this biomarker discovery study.

Results that were nominally significant in our AD‐adjusted model were predominantly in the direction of effect opposite of that hypothesized.

Although most distortion effects are nominally significant and exceed the largest k ‐value we obtained from our null model based on Mendelian simulations (above), there are reasons to suspect other unmodeled sources of variation might be responsible rather than segregation distortion.