“nominally significant”

Longitudinal stratification of the CIPN phenotypes to examine links for neuropathy, identified nominally significant protective associations with the GSTM* null allele ( p -value = 0.038, OR = 0.55) and the presence of pain at month 2 of treatment, as well as a risk factor for pain related month 2 of treatment for individuals with the GSTT1* null allele ( p -value = 0.030, OR = 1.64).

Even though the UC observations in the MTG are in line with the blood findings, only for one UC probe (cg07311024) the change was nominally significant (logFC = − 0.01, p = 3.88E−02).

Left VAN showed a nominally significant difference ( p = 0.039) that did not survive FDR correction (p~FDR~ = 0.110) and is therefore not considered a statistically significant finding.

Overall, no significant difference was observed in the mutation burden of subclonal mutations between primary and metastatic lesions ( p = 0.265, Mann–Whitney U test), although we note that a nominally significant difference was observed in 12/14 cases ( p = 0.039, Mann–Whitney U test).

In contrast, there were only two nominally significant associations across all regions for cortical thickness (right caudal anterior cingulate and right caudal middle frontal; both r = −0.087, p = 0.039), neither of which survived FDR correction.

Italians had a nominally significant decrease in the burden of deleterious variants compared to Europeans (uncorrected P=0.039, not significant after correction for multiple testing; Table 2A ).

The association between mutations in NTD-A with facial weakness and delayed independent ambulation was nominally significant (Fisher exact test p = 0.039, p = 0.038, respectively).

Prior to FDR correction, nominally significant group effects were observed at S = 0.35 (F(2,46) = 3.49, uncorrected p = 0.039, η2p = 0.093), S = 0.40 (F(2,46) = 2.86, p = 0.067, η2p = 0.081), S = 0.45 (F(2,46) = 3.29, p = 0.046, η2p = 0.088), and S = 0.50 (F(2,46) = 6.35, p = 0.004, η2p = 0.125).

At a threshold of FIS ≥0.7, SERPING1 variant carriers had a nominally significant increased risk of NCEIS (HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.06-10.19; P = .039) and PAD (HR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.29-7.45; P = .011), with the association for PAD remaining significant after Bonferroni correction ( Figure 2 C; supplemental Table 4 ).

Another IBD-associated SNV, rs17085007, showed a nominally significant association after meta-analyses, and a small effect size (p=0.039, beta=0.008).

There was a nominally significant association between AAA and HLA-DQA1 locus in the Belgian population (empirical p = 0.039; asymptotic p = 0.049; p = 0.147 after Sidak correction for multiple testing).

Assessment for significance of an SOD2 (# Ala16 alleles)-by-deployment interaction term (adjusted for both components of the interaction) to evaluate for effect modification by deployment was nominally significant, p = 0.039.

For those who identified as Southeast or South (SE/S) Asian, there was a nominally significant interaction ( p = 0.039; β = 0.358) with religious attendance ( Fig. 3 ).

Subgroup analysis showed that patients with cN2‐3 had a significant survival benefit with NAC‐DCF (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34–0.76) in the IPW analysis, whereas no clear association was observed in those with cN0–1 (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62–1.34), with a nominally significant interaction by clinical N stage ( p = 0.039).

Other nominally significant correlations that did not survive FDR correction include: negative correlations between TSH and positive emotion scores during jet lag ( p = .039, uncorrected, r = −0.44) and between melatonin and drowsiness ( p = .026, uncorrected, r = −0.47).

Reverse MR suggested nominally significant associations: higher genetically predicted heel BMD was associated with lower POI risk ( OR = 0.792, 95% CI : 0.635–0.988, P = 0.039), while genetic susceptibility to wrist fracture ( OR = 1.44, 95% CI : 1.038–1.986, P =0.025) and pelvic fracture ( OR =1.177, 95% CI :1.056–1.312, P =0.003) were associated with increased POI risk.

In FinnGen, the weighted‐median analysis showed a nominally significant positive association (OR = 1.554, 95% CI = 1.022–2.365, p = 3.90E‐02), whereas the IVW‐FE estimate showed a similar direction but did not reach statistical significance (OR = 1.233, 95% CI = 0.968–1.570, p = 9.00E‐02).

0.25), corresponding to a nominally significant association (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.05–2.67; p = 0.039).

Nominally significant positive associations were observed between the weighted PGS and maternal alcohol consumption at week 30 (ST17; beta = 0.067, se = 0.032, p = 0.039).

69 In the phase 3 CUPID B trial that investigated patients with CSU who were refractory to 3 months of omalizumab therapy, a nominally significant reduction in UAS7 from baseline compared with placebo (−14.4 vs −8.5; P =0.0390) was observed at week 24.

Nevertheless, we note that a nominally significant effect of the additive model ( p = 0.039) was also found that might survive multiple comparison testing in larger samples.

We further note that rs73404538 is nominally significant in the Sierra Leone susceptibility GWAS ( P = 0.039, OR = 0.71) and in a meta-analysis of the Nigeria and Sierra Leone susceptibility GWASs ( P = 0.021) with a concordant direction of effect (Extended Data Table 4 ).

For the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale, no significant group × time interaction effects were observed at any assessment point except T2, where a nominally significant group × time effect was found ( b = -1.766, t = -2.066, p = 0.039); however, this result did not remain significant after FDR correction.

The difference in lymph node reduction between groups had nominally significant association in this exploratory analysis (p = 0.039, independent-samples t -test), with a moderate-to-large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.71) ( Figure 2 ).

For the OR, FA showed a nominally significant negative association at the uncorrected level (β = − 0.187, t (110) = −2.084, p =.039), but this did not survive FDR correction (FDR adjusted q = 0.118).