“nominally significant”

The RGS12 SNP rs4690093 confirmed a nominally significant association between the clinical response to ADA (OR = 0.4; CI 95% = 0.17–0.98; p = 0.04).

A post hoc analysis checking for sex interactions across the factors revealed a nominally significant interaction with sex for cardiometabolic MR1 only (GHQ-12 beta = −0.075, p = 0.040, SF12-MCS beta = −0.075, p = 0.042, reference category female).

We observed nominally significant differences for visceral fat area (VFA; L4/L5) across the three groups ( p = 0.04), comparing cachectic and pre-cachectic patients ( p = 0.03) and pre-cachectic and non-cachectic patients ( p = 0.04), respectively.

The FXS diagnostic grouping produced nominally significant effects on frontal (F = 4.46, P = 0.04) and temporal GM volumes (F = 3.86, P = 0.05): individuals with FXS had smaller volumes of these structures than individuals with idiopathic autism.

Although PCSK1 rs6235 was not significantly associated with diabetes in the age- and sex-adjusted models ( P = 0.21), additional adjustment for BMI rendered a nominally significant protective effect for this variant ( P = 0.04).

MiR‐223‐3p showed a significant AUEC over 0.67 days for IFNβ‐1a when the miRNA returned to baseline ( p = 0.015), and a nominally significant AUEC for pegIFNβ‐1a over 13 days ( p = 0.04).

Further stratified analyses between boys and girls showed that nominally significant genetic association with BMI z-scores was found in girls but not in boys ( Fig 1A ; in girls: AG vs AA coefficient = 0.6, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.02–1.18; GG vs AA coefficient = 1.33, p = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.17–2.49).

We find that the two depressive symptoms lead-SNPs have the predicted sign for subjective well-being, and one is nominally significant ( p = 0.04).

After adjustment for clinical variables, and correction for multiple comparisons the association between the VEGFA genotype and Gensini score remained only nominally significant ( p = 0.04, FDR = 0.19) under the dominant genetic model in patients without previous MI.

Although there was no significant relationship between exercise intervention and mtDNA-CN change (P = 0.29), there was a nominally significant association between mtDNA-CN and metabolic syndrome (P = 0.04), which has been seen in previous literature.

Results: Among the examined variants, only GDF5 rs143384 showed a nominally significant association with DDH ( p = 0.040), with the A allele more common in affected individuals.

We observed a nominally significant association between the PGC-PTSD freeze-1.5 PRS (PT = 10 −5 ) and EA ( R 2 = 0.0004%; SE = 0.000002; P = .04) that would not survive a Bonferroni correction for the number of PTs tested.

COMT Val158Met was also nominally significant in this model (F (2,109) =3.4, p =0.04) (but see below for other model results).

The authors found a slightly higher number of patients in sinus rhythm after 1 year, with a nominally significant P -value ( P = 0.04) in the primary outcome of the study, defined as sinus rhythm on at least 6 out of 7 days of a 7 day Holter ECG at 1 year follow-up.

SIRT1 rs3758391 T allele showed nominally significant associations with depressive disorders (OR = 1.19, 95% CI of 1.01 to 1.40, p = 0.040, see Table 3 ), metabolic syndrome (OR = 0.88, 95% CI of 0.80 to 0.97, p = 0.01, see Table 3 ), insulin resistance index (beta = -0.26, 95% CI of -0.48 to -0.04, p = 0.019, empirical p = 0.02, see Table 3 ) and blood glucose (beta = -0.05, CI of -0.09 to -0.002, p = 0.04, empirical p = 0.04, Table 3 ).

In the GAMs analysis, two variables showed nominally significant effects: baseline PNS index ( P = 0.040, b splin e 1 = − 0.942 ) and gender ( P = 0.028, coefficient = − 0.1332 ), with partial effects illustrated in Figure 5 and full results reported in the Supplementary Materials ( Supplementary data online , Table S5 , Supplementary data online , Figure S10 ).

Mediation tests were significant as well ( p = 0.001) and lookup of the total effect on MMSE revealed a nominally significant association (p = 0.04) (Supplementary Table S3 ).

The evidence for three populations rather than two is nominally significant as shown in the formal likelihood ratio tests ( p = 0.04; Fig. 2 c).

Genetically, three severe COVID-19 relevant SNPs (i.e., rs657152, rs10735079, and rs2109069) [ 12 , 13 ] displayed consistent associations with all-cause ARDS development in this study, of which 2 were nominally significant ( P = 0.040, 0.013, and 0.045, respectively; Fig.

8 In the multivariable Cox model reported by Ruhwedel et al., the overall effect of primary tumor location was not statistically significant ( p = .11), but there was a nominally significant association for shorter OS in patients with pancreatic versus gastrointestinal NETs during [ 177 Lu]Lu‐edotreotide therapy ( p = .04). 33 However, there are prognostic differences between NETs of different origin, depending on the aggressiveness of disease. 44 , 45 Overall, our findin

The direction of effect was consistent with that in the other studies but was only nominally significant in SDRNT1BIO ( P = 0.04) and not significant in DCCT ( P = 0.14) and WESDR ( P = 0.08).

Longitudinal change in total recall performance was nominally significant ( p = 0.04) between the PiB + and PiB − groups, and total recall at baseline was also significantly different between groups ( p < 0.01) indicating, as expected, a more overt cognitive decline was present in the individuals with positive PiB scans.

In the sensitivity analysis accounting for medication use, those who switched medications (mixed use) had 1.81 greater odds of experiencing high negative symptoms compared to those with continued AAP use; however, this was nominally significant ( p = 0.04).

In the Phase 2 HART trial, the 45 mg bid (twice daily) dose showed a nominally significant benefit to TMS vs. placebo (Δ = −2.8, p = 0.04), particularly in hand movements (Δ = −0.93, p = 0.02) and gait and balance (Δ = −0.48, p = 0.04) [ 150 ].

When analyzing the time to gastrostomy based on the initial randomization group, the survival curves differed ( Figure 3 ) and Cox regression indicated a nominally significant difference (Likelihood Ratio Test, p = 0.040).