“nominally significant”

Thus, besides nominally significant group differences, differences with large effect sizes (> 0.80) are additionally reported below. 5.5 Secondary Endpoints of Efficacy—Behavior Rating Scales A positive effect of tDCS versus sham was found on the reduction of compulsive behavior captured by the parent rated RBS‐R with a medium effect size (ES = −0.590, 95% CI −1.140; −0.040; tDCS EM 2.22, SE 0.41, sham EM 3.36, SE 0.345).

Thus, these findings are considered hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory and nominally significant findings for these endpoints warrant cautious interpretation.

Six of these SNPs showed genome-wide significant evidence for association in one of the studies with concordant and nominally significant effects in the second study.

One other locus (rs11178997) produced a nominally significant result with fixed effects models only, however the association was not present when only Caucasian populations were considered.

Therefore, we arbitrarily selected P < 0.05/5 = 0.01 for LEP as nominally significant since it corresponds to a corrected P -value of 0.05 after correction for 5 independent SNPs in the 12 SNPs analyzed in the study.

Although the results from the polygenic risk score (PRS) analyses did not survive multiple testing correction, we observed nominally significant associations between GS and risk of overall fracture, as previously reported, as well ADHD which will require further investigations.

Placebo-adjusted effects of medication on ADHD symptoms, HRQoL and functioning, respectively, were statistically or nominally significant in 18/18, 10/12 and 7/9 studies in children/adolescents and 14/16, 9/11 and 9/10 studies in adults.

Unadjusted for smoking, no CVD phenotype passed Bonferroni significance and, once adjusted, none was even nominally significant.

First, our sample size in the WGS analysis of GBF1 was limited, and we only observed nominally significant associations in the family‐based dataset.

p ‐value <0.05 is considered to be nominally significant.

On the other hand, the heritability of other phenotypes 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 was not significantly enriched in the promoter regions of nominally significant TADs.

Binomial tests were then performed in R using the function “binom.test”, contrasting for each gene the number of nominally significant CpG sites to the total number of probes annotated to each gene transcript not taking the direction of the methylation change into account.

SNPs with nominally significant associations in one sex were then tested for their interactions with sex on ACL.

Seventeen metabolites had a nominally significant change in plasma levels upon atenolol treatment; nine changed significantly in the complete dataset after considering false discovery rate ( Table 3 ) seven of which were fatty acids.

The disease-associated increase in LAM reflects as target gene enrichment signature for mmu-miR-23b and mmu-miR-27b (mmu-miR-24–1 nominally significant) that match the same pri-miRNA locus, while both tissue monocytes and LAM expression could contribute to mmu-miR-221 ~ 222 target enrichment (Figs. 3 and 4 ).

In the female-offspring nuclear families, rs2075252 and haplotype GA of rs4667591 and rs2075252 were identified in the nominally significant total association with peak BMD at L1-4; however, no significant within-family association was found between peak BMD at the L1-4 and hip sites and six tagSNPs or haplotypes.

At this correction level, results with a P value less than 0.05 were considered nominally significant and statistically significant evidence for a potential causal effect [ 22 ]. 4.

Nominally significant results that remained significant after FDR correction are marked with an asterisk.

There was also a nominally significant association with the adaptive motor domain score of the second edition of the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale (VABS-II) despite a small sample size ( R 2 = 8%; s.e. = 7%; P = 4.7 × 10 −2 ; n = 217).

In conclusion, in this study, we performed a replication study of five SNPs, previously known to be associated with SLE but not replicated in Koreans, with a relatively large amount of samples, demonstrating that rs1801274 in FCGR2A shows a nominally significant association with SLE, but the other four SNPs appear to have no association in the Korean population.

Excluding the outlying data points, the pooled effect estimate was somewhat diminished in magnitude for TLMA 1 but increased for TLMA 2, providing now a nominally significant overall effect as well ( Table 3 ). 3.4.

A p -value of < 0.05 was identified as nominally significant.

Among those CpGs, only two (cg25193885 and cg19859270) showed nominally significant association with mortality ( Supplementary Figure 2A , 2B ).

This may explain why some of the known SNP associations with AD were not replicated or only had nominally significant association in the 23andMe cohort.

The threshold of significance was set at p < 0.05/15 = 0.003, with p < 0.05 and p > 0.003 considered nominally significant.