“nominally significant”

In the sub-elite, the recessive model was nominally significant ( p = 0.03), but it did not survive FDR (FDR-adjusted p = 0.09).

Only Enoyl-CoA hydratase in butyrate pathway ( K01692 ) and carbamoyl-phosphate synthase ( K01955 ) in alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism showed nominally significant differences ( P = .03, 0.006 [ t -test]).

Of the seven individual mutations observed in more than 2% of tumors, we observed nominally significant higher frequency of the E545K hotspot mutation in PIK3CA (13.7% vs. 7.5%, Fisher exact test P value = 0.03) and a nonsignificant trend toward higher frequency of the splice variant in GATA3 (4.8% vs. 1.9%, Fisher exact test P value = 0.07) in H/L compared with TCGA Whites (Supplementary Table S5).

Type 1 diabetes was nominally significant in IVW analysis in relation to POAG ( p = 0.03) but no statistically significant signals were obtained for this trait by the other MR methods used in this study (weighted median p = 0.07, weighted mode p = 0.10, MR Egger p = 0.19).

In contrast, limited coordinated immune remodeling was observed between CB and NCB patients; only one population, CD3 + CD8 + PD-1 + PD-L1 + T cells, showed a nominally significant ( p = 0.030, q = 0.87, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) increase following treatment, preferentially in NCB patients ( Figure 5 B).

Results Demography There was an overall nominally significant sex difference in mean age ( t (56) = 2.2, p = 0.03).

Although 2-component systems did not reach the FDR 0.1 threshold in DINE-CD, it was nominally significant at P = .03.

Differences in prevalent coronary artery disease diagnoses of ICD9, ICD10, and OPCS-4 codes between clusters In the CAD-IMG-UKB cohort, nominally significant differences were observed for angina pectoris (I20.9) [ n = 65 (18%) vs. n = 362 (23%), P = 0.03] and saphenous vein graft replacement of one coronary artery (K40.1) [ n = 3 (1%) vs. n = 2 (0.1%), P = 0.05] when comparing Cluster 1 vs.

Except for a nominally significant association to verbal learning for individuals with psychosis ( β = −0.11, p = 0.03), there were no significant associations between the PGS SCZ and the remaining cognitive phenotypes (numerical values for β s, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p values for both participants with psychosis and healthy controls are presented in Supplementary Table S1 ).

Only TG showed nominally significant difference between the three stenosis groups ( P = 0.03), followed by a nonsignificant trend of difference observed for TC ( P = 0.43) ( Table 1 ).

In the group with moderate RLE exposure after correction for multiple testing, the effect of depressive (β = 0.265, p = 0.001, q = 0.003), cyclothymic (β = 0.283, p < 0.001, q < 0.001) and hyperthymic (β = −0.132, p = 0.033, q = 0.046) affective temperaments on BSI depression was significant, the effect of anxious temperament was nominally significant but did not survive correction for multiple testing (β = 0.171, p = 0.030, q = 0.053), and irritable temperament had no significant effect (β = 0.104, p = 0.121, q = 0.141) ( Table 5 ).

None of these nine variants were associated with age-at-onset (Online Resources 7) after Bonferroni correction, however, EBF3 showed nominally significant association with a later age-at-onset of 0.8 years (79.0 years) compared to the major allele (78.2 years; p = 0.03).

When controlling for CAG size using the adjustment method, we found a significantly reduced expansion frequency in Htt Q175neo+ (two-proportion z -test, P < 0.01), while the effect was only nominally significant when adjusting through the modeling methodology (two-proportion z -test, P = 0.03; Bonferroni corrected significance threshold P = 0.0167), likely due to the reduced sample size enforced by this methodology ( Figure 7D and Table S3 ).

A nominally significant similar relationship was observed for the right amygdala, though this did not survive multiple comparison correction (Figure 4b ; Table 2 ; t = −2.2; p = .03, q = 0.06).

For a short period of time, when 4 trials were available, the cumulative meta-analysis suggested a nominally significant benefit (p = 0.03; with limited evidence, however, as transient nominally significant results upon sequential addition of trials can be misleading) [ 43 ].

SNPs that remained nominally significant (p = 0.03) and therefore contributed to explaining additional THP variance after adjusting for rs12917707 were rs115312009, rs147825435, rs76619864, and rs75432530.

While all were negative for rare mutations in a gene-set comprising PD disease-causing and risk genes, another candidate gene-set of 1000 genes functionally relevant to PD presented a nominally significant ( P = 0.03) enrichment of rare putatively damaging missense variants in the PD cases.

Non-opponent units lacked any stimulus-related differences, but a nominally significant increase in S-ON/L-OFF neuronal responses at 3 s but not earlier or later timepoints was observed ( P = 0.03).

The nominally significant correlation between ΔFA genu and reaction time (ΔRT) ( p = 0.03) may support this notion.

There was a nominally significant excess of heart failure (HR 1.34, 95% CI:1.03 to 1.75, p=0.03) but no associations with other studied cardiac outcomes.

Considering the one-sided nature of the replication effort, they are indeed nominally significant (one-sided p=0.03 and 0.04).

In addition, the FAR variant caused a nominally significant (p = 0.03) effect on OLE1 but not on SDS23 (p = 0.7), in agreement with our yeVenus reporter assay ( S4 Fig ).

This association of phase with the GAF score was nominally significant in the modified 46-Hz ASSR ( r = 0.31, p = 0.03), although the significance has disappeared after Bonferroni correction (Fig. 2 b, right panel).

The treatment effect for 360 mg, every 2 weeks vs placebo was nominally significant (−16.3%; nominal P = .03); however, significance could not be claimed because the hierarchical testing sequence was interrupted.

Participants in the Sativex group demonstrated a pattern of improved cognitive performance as measured by the QbTest, nominally significant improvements in symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity ( P =.03), and trends toward improvement for inattention and emotional lability.