“nominally significant”

Nine variants on nine genes were rated as presenting strong cumulative epidemiological evidence for a nominally significant association with GC risk, including APE1 (rs1760944), DNMT1 (rs16999593), ERCC5 (rs751402), GSTT1 (null/presence), MDM2 (rs2278744), PPARG (rs1801282), TLR4 (rs4986790), IL-17F (rs763780), and CASP8 (rs3834129).

If the confidence interval did not include zero (or one for log-transformed parameters), the difference was considered nominally significant at the 5 % level (unadjusted for multiple comparisons).

Although a nominally significant association was observed for bridges, the low coefficient of determination indicates limited explanatory value, suggesting that emergence angle alone accounted for only a small fraction of the observed variability in long-term MBL.

As expected in high-dimensional datasets with limited sample sizes, several metabolite-level associations that were nominally significant did not remain so after correction.

These results were nominally significant, and sensitivity analyses did not detect any multidirectionality or heterogeneity, suggesting that the results of our analyses are reliable.

When samples were stratified by 22q13.33 insertion genotype, prenatal vitamin use during the first month of pregnancy showed a nominally significant protective effect among individuals with the insertion, although we acknowledge that the sample size is small (within samples homozygous for the insertion: in samples from mothers who took prenatal vitamin during the first month of pregnancy, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon, p value = 0.046, ASD n = 3, TD n = 4, effect size = −2.09; Additional File 3 : Fig.

20 Non- APOE PRS2 and PRS4 had nominally significant associations with Aβ42/Aβ40, but no associations were significant after Bonferroni correction ( Figure 2 ; eTables 4–7, links.lww.com/WNL/C21 ).

(2017) reported four nominally significant gene sets related to neurological functioning, among these “neuroactive ligand receptor interaction,” which was also identified in the present study ( Table 2 ).

We found no evidence for enrichment of the 22 CpGs among the 18,848 nominally significant CpGs from the cord blood analysis and among the 23,173 nominally significant CpGs from the 10-year-old analysis (Fisher combined probability p value = 1.00 in newborns and p value = 0.68 in 10-year-old children).

were nominally significant based on our randomization tests, but not significant after controlling for multiple comparisons; Fig 2A ).

Further, the transcriptional decreasing effect of intermediate repeat lengths and small deletions in the 3' flanking sequence could probably explain the observed nominally significant association of intermediate repeat alleles and indels in the 3' flanking sequence with increased disease risk in the Belgian ALS and FTLD–ALS population, possibly through subtle changes in C9orf72 expression.

In CSF, on the other hand, disease progression was associated with nominally significant increases in NAD+, arginine, saturated long-chain free fatty acids, diacylglycerides, triacylglycerides, and sphingomyelins.

Combining the allele scores for all three lipid measures, in a total allele count score that included all 21 risk variants, resulted in an association between combined allele count and MI with an OR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.04–1.30, P = 0.007): all but the LDL risk variant score gave nominally significant P -values (<0.05).

In addition, it is important to note that the information identified in the work of Wang et al., the nominally significant causal relationship between a higher level of SHBG and a lower UF risk, according to the authors themselves (!) contradicts one of the main conclusions made in their work—“ the protective effect of a higher level of total testosterone on uterine leiomyoma, as higher SHBG usually means less bioactive testosterone” [ 23 ].

Nominally significant differences in allele frequencies were noted for HLA-A*23, DRB1*04, and DRB1*13 (Table 6 ).

3.2 No single major axis of among‐individual behavioural (co)variation Examination of the between‐trait correlations in I pre ( r I ; Table 2 a, above‐diagonals) indicates a number of significant pairwise relationships, both positive and negative (correlations where 95% confidence intervals do not cross zero are considered nominally significant).

However, the FDR analysis shows that these sites are only nominally significant in the prospective cohort (Table 3 ).

rs7982 (chr8:27462481), in almost complete LD with the AD GWAS locus rs4236673, was significantly ( p = 1E-50) associated with the ASE of CLU only in the TC, but not even nominally significant in the other regions (Fig. 1c , Table S1 ).

None of the nine newborn CpG sites was even nominally significant in the childhood analysis and, conversely, only two of 179 childhood CpG sites were nominally significant and in the same direction of association as in the newborn analysis.

Nominally significant terms were also reviewed when they helped show representative biological patterns.

Only one out of 14 nominally significant p-values was above the adjusted p-value.

Social interaction and communication scores also had nominally significant associations in female subjects, but these did not survive correction.

We observed a nominally significant improvement in mismatch negativity (MMN) and a statistical trend to improvement for auditory steady-state response at 40 Hz, in both cases with 50 mg, but not with 500 mg, compared with placebo.

Notably, the pancreas showed nominally significant enrichment across all three disorders (AOA, COA, and GD).

It is possible that some nominally significant results were true-positive associations which we failed to detect.