“nominally significant”

Interactions by diabetes ( p for interaction = 0.034) and CVD ( p for interaction = 0.019) were nominally significant but did not remain significant after correction for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted threshold ≈ 0.0056).

DET with absolute Log 2 FC < 0.2 response difference between groups (red dots in Fig 2C ), despite a large number of nominally significant transcripts, were significantly enriched in only a single “Ion channel transport” GO term.

Although nominally significant differences (Welch’s 1-sided t-test, alpha=0.05) in mean breadth of response between cases and pediatric controls were detected across 5 pathogens ( Fig. 1B ), only differences in responses to 4 Parvoviridae species (Adeno-associated dependoparvovirus A, Adeno-associated virus, Adeno-associated virus VR-355, and non-human primate Adeno-associated virus) were significant after correcting for multiple hypothesis testing [false discovery rate (FDR) = 0.05].

Although nominally significant, the triple-variant haplotype has a larger effect than the haplotype carrying only D1908G, thereby suggesting an additive effect of both loci.

We did not replicate the differences in the Bifidobacterium genus showing the largest (nominally significant) difference between the ADHD group and controls by Aarts et al., even though this sample overlaps with the current sample (around 40%).

Upon further review of our in vitro data, we noted that it was significantly upregulated in exosomes derived from 3 of 4 HNSCC (Q < 0.1) and nominally significant in the 4 th (p undajusted = 0.04).

Comparisons resulting in p<0.05 are considered nominally significant and are highlighted for the reader.

The effect of the drug on the behavior was nominally significant but failed to reach study-wide significance; hence, this finding needs to be replicated in different cohorts.

When ordinal immunohistochemical variables were binarized, the cutoff was set at the first category above 0 that showed nominally significant prognostic value in a univariate Cox model.

However, the AD PRS × CC interaction was nominally significant ( p -value < =0.05) for 57 lipid species (Table 3 ), which were mainly PCs, SMs, and TGs.

Although several oxytocin contrasts were nominally significant before multiplicity adjustment, these effects were not retained after Sidak correction; thus, any apparent fluctuations should be interpreted cautiously as exploratory.

We conducted correlation analyses between studies on nominally significant variants to ensure reliable comparison of effects to verify beta direction consistency.

The 50% reduction in risk in EMPEROR‐Reduced was nominally significant, whereas the 29% decrease in risk in DAPA‐HF was not. 3 , 4 In contrast, the meta‐analysis of EMPEROR‐Reduced and EMPEROR‐Preserved is expected to yield >200 events, allowing a degree of precision in patients with chronic heart failure that approximates that seen in trials of patients with type 2 diabetes.

For d_VCL, several correlations were nominally significant.

One of the variants identified (rs2637248) showed a nominally significant association with age at onset in validation group of MODY patients, supporting the veracity of this genetic effect.

Many nominally significant signals of association listed in tables would not survive to rigorous corrections for multiple testing (see Table 3 ).

A nominally significant correlation was also found with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; r g = − 0.38; 95% CI = (− 0.67, − 0.09)).

All six had at least a nominally significant association with reduced serum calcium levels in at least one genetically determined ancestry, including two of the three variants also found in the UKB (c.310G>A [p.Val104Ile] and c.452C>T [p.Thr151Met]).

None of the genes was significant after Bonferroni multiple test correction; however, quantile-quantile plots, investigating the discrepancy between real p -values and uniformly distributed p -values expected under the null hypothesis of no association, displayed an excess of nominally significant p -values for the protein damaging group compared with all coding variants.

Power analysis by simulation showed that a sample size of at least 19,500 is needed to detect nominally significant indirect effects with true effect sizes equal to the point estimates at the locus with strongest evidence of mediation.

These nominally significant ECG features were then introduced to the model by a forward stepwise algorithm using a conservative p -value of 0.01 for entry and removal from the model.

Two SNPs in the AKT1 gene (rs33925946 and rs1130214) and two SNPs in the RPTOR gene (rs3476568 and rs9915667) provided nominally significant results and were selected to be included in the predictor.

Forward Mendelian Randomization: Effects of Biomarkers on Sepsis Complications The primary inverse-variance weighted (IVW) analysis identified three nominally significant associations between genetically predicted biomarker levels and the risk of sepsis-related complications.

Almost all were nominally significant (16 of 18) and all showed positive correlation with reported ANM, in agreement with their previously reported effects (Table 1 ). 19 The weighted gene risk score was 1.19 (Table 1 ) and the most significant gene locus was rs11668344 ( TMEM150B; P = 3.9 × 10 −20 ).

An interesting data point in Figure 3 is a single 5% frequency non-coding variant (directly before R278Q) whose OLS effect estimate is quite large (and nominally significant) but whose model-based effect estimate is small.