“nominally significant”

At the replication stage, P replication < 0.05 and consistent effect direction of the interaction term with the discovery cohort were considered as nominally significant.

Nominally significant REST to C- and F-WAIT reductions occurred in DMN-related regions, including precuneus, superior parietal lobule, postcentral gyrus and medial frontal gyrus (F-WAIT: pseudo t = 5.07, corrected p = 0.20; C-WAIT: pseudo t = 6.16, corrected p = 0.15) but these were not significant when p values were adjusted for multiple testing.

Non-synonymous variants identified by deep-sequencing of 10 identified genes (GWAS), and 11 identified by association with innate immunity, Table 1 showed TLR4 was associated with BD, while rare nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain-2 ( NOD2 ) variants were nominally significant.

For the top signal, ARID5B , the associations with carotid plaque were consistent in direction and nominally significant across subgroups of age ( < or ≥ 65 years), sex, and statin use (Fig. 1e ).

The benefit was nominally significant in the trial with dapagliflozin but not in the trial with empagliflozin.

Two‐sided P ‐values <0.05 were considered nominally significant.

A large number of SNPs may be tested within the same study for their association with a disease, and this generates many nominally significant findings that are actually false positives.

Discussion The present study indicates that CILP2-rs10401969, GRK5-rs10886471, CDKAL1-rs10946398, IGF2BP2-rs1470579, TLE1-rs2796441, PROX1-rs340874, GATAD2A-rs3794991, HHEX-rs5015480, TSPAN8/LGR5-rs7961581, and ZFAND3-rs9470794 showed nominally significant interactions with prenatal exposure to famine in type 2 diabetes risk.

A commonly employed threshold for genome-wide significance is a p -value <5 × 10 −8 , corresponding to a Bonferroni correction applied to a nominally significant p -value of 0.05 for 1,000,000 tests (i.e., =0.05/1,000,000).

Findings were considered ‘nominally significant’ if corresponding p values were ⩽0.05 but >0.01.

Association between SNPs and Traits of Interest Based on the results of the 2007 year group (Population 1) GWA analysis, 16 nominally significant SNPs were selected for genotyping in the 1999 year group (Population 2).

This study was of similar design, but with a much larger cohort (N = 1996); among 34 variants comprising the PRS, the odds ratio point estimate was positive in only 24, and only 8 showed a nominally significant association with GDM.

Of the 85 variants tested, only 1 showed a rise to a nominally significant P value, highlighting a complete lack of support for the validity of hypothesis that any of the variants previously reported in scores of publications are associated with acute coronary syndromes [9] , [11] .

We examined SNPs within nominally significant pathways using linear mixed models to estimate their contribution to overall BMI heritability.

A single variant and gene burden analysis revealed some nominally significant results of potential interest for SORL1 and DNAJC6 genes.

We used whole exome sequencing (WES) to examine the cumulative effect of coding variants in each gene on risk of complicated SAB in a discovery set of patients, and then evaluated the nominally significant genes in a replication set of patients using custom-capture sequencing.

The eosinophils, lymphocytes, and WBC levels showed nominally significant associations with BMI (ps < 0.05), but these associations did not survive the Bonferroni correction.

Risk alleles located in or near HNF1A , PLEKHF2 , and KCNJ11 showed nominally significant interactions with treatment arms to predict progression to diabetes.

Ten SNPs were nominally significant in the expected direction across this unselected sample.

19 , 27 Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Analysis For exposures with nominally significant associations in both primary and replication analyses, we conducted MVMR analyses to test whether the observed effect was mediated by major fibrogenic factors, including MMP2, MMP9, TIMP1, TIMP2, TGFB1, TGFBR1, TGFBR2, SMAD2, SMAD3, and CTGF.

Variables with P- values <0.05 and <7 × 10 –4 were deemed nominally significant (important) and statistically significant, respectively.

Nominally significant associations were observed between variations in the alpha-2A adrenergic receptor gene ( ADRA2A ) and the Slow-5 band.

Nominally significant T-cell subsets were selected as candidate variables for further examination in multiple ordinal and multinomial logistic regression analyses with ordered categories of frailty (0, 1–2, 3) as dependent variable, adjusting for age, sex and multimorbidity.

A two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered nominally significant for exploratory purposes.

Second, we reported nominally significant causal associations.