“nominally significant”

However, a plot of the p -values for all genes tested in the psychENCODE cohort revealed that there are many nominally significant genes (unadjusted p -value <0.05) that failed to reach the threshold of statistical significance following multiple testing (Supplementary Fig. 3 ) suggesting that this small cohort might be underpowered.

These 25 marks were tested for association with prostate cancer, and nominally significant associations (p < 0.05) with aggressive prostate cancer were found for all 9 marks near VTRNA2-1 (Table 1 ), with most remaining nominally significant after dichotomising (Supplementary Table 2), (as previously reported, based on the same datasets [ 5 ]).

For the purposes of this study, the terms “nominally significant” and “enriched” refer to results with a p-value <0.05 but not meeting the Bonferroni threshold, and “statistically significant” refers to results with a p-value <1.6 x 10 -3 .

Meanwhile, when covariates were included, 7,350 genes were nominally significant (p < 0.05), and 5,532 genes remained significant after multiple comparison correction (padj < 0.05).

Using the observed baseline study mean (ALSFRS‐R ≥ 31), the difference in the percentage of MSC‐NTF versus placebo responders increased, and the increase in sample size produced a nominally significant P ‐value ( P < .05, Table 4 ).

All the 14 SNPs showed nominally significant association with AD ( P < 0.05) with the same effect directions in IGAP GWAS dataset (Supplementary Table 1 ).

Of the 629 candidate genes associated with circulating vitamin D in the Phase 1 gene-set, 55 had nominally significant expression change after supplementation ( P < 0.05).

Genome-wide differential expression analysis between medicated and non-medicated samples in each lesion subtype resulted in 569 (DIE), 836 (OMA) and 638 (SUP) nominally significant genes ( p < 0.05).

We did not identify any metabolites significantly related in the meta-analysis to any of the four traits (FDR < 0.05) where there was even a nominally significant association (uncorrected P < 0.05) in African-Americans where the effect estimate was in the opposite direction. 3.

To ensure a sufficiently large sampling distribution, we restricted our analysis to six nominally significant ( p < 0.05 952 ≈ 5.25 × 10 − 5 ) gene-trait combinations with at least 10 individuals who are either CH variant carriers or with ≥2 pLoF or damaging missense/protein-altering variants on the same haplotype ( STAR Methods ).

Of those SNPs previously associated with AD, rs11038106, rs9597722, rs723804, rs17697225 [ 63 ], rs2065706 [ 64 ] (plan 1), rs4679840 [ 58 ] (plan 2), and rs1359176 [ 65 ] (plan 3) were only nominally significant (5E–06 ≤ p < 5E–02) in previous studies.

In the Results, we present nominally significant results ( P < 0.05) results with a Bonferroni correction for the number of SNPs being analyzed ( α /2; P < 0.025), which was consistent with the approach used in a prior study assessing genetic variants and GxEs as predictors of mental health trajectories (Latendresse et al. 2011 ).

To facilitate visual comparison of effect sizes across loci, a forest plot summarising the age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for polymorphisms with nominally significant associations (p < 0.05) is provided in Figure 2 .

Causal estimates produced by the different methods had consistent direction of effect compared to the IVW estimate and all save MR-Egger were nominally significant (i.e. p < 0.05).

Genes associated with kidney function (eGFRcrea, eGFRcys, urea) We compiled a list of 32 genes that were significantly associated with eGFRcrea or eGFRcys either via GBT or ExWAS analyses, and which showed a direction-consistent and at least nominally significant ( p < 0.05) association with the respective other GFR estimate, along with a direction consistent association with urea and CKD (Table 1 ; Supplementary Data 2 ).

Very little epistasis was apparentin the hotspot regions, with less than 7% of trans methQTL in these hotspots possessing a nominally significant (P<0.05) epistatic interaction, and less than 1%of trans methQTLwith a significant epistatic interaction(see Supplementary Table 3 ).

Nominally significant results ( P < 0.05, FDR > 0.05) were reported for completeness but highlighted as exploratory.

3.3 Univariate linear regression analysis Among the 831 features investigated, 42 showed a nominally significant difference at a p = .05 level between the n-3 LCPUFA supplementation and the placebo group.

Associations in the linear regression models are presented as nominally significant ( P < 0.05).

Putative biological impact of differentially methylated genes The DMPs above the inflection point ( p < 0.002; n = 82; Table S 2 ) and nominally significant DMPs ( p < 0.05; n = 1957) were physically and functionally mapped to 66 and 1260 genes, respectively.

In cases of sample overlap and nominally significant results ( P -value < 0.05), we employed MRlap[ 47 ], a recently developed tool to account for potential sample overlap in univariable MR studies.

Along with P values, the test statistic Z value is presented to represent the strength of the association of the covariate with the outcome, with absolute values of Z ≥ 1.96 representing a nominally significant P value ≤ 0.05.

Evidence of 22 (51%) non‐genetic biomarkers exhibited a nominally significant effect ( p < 0.05) on AS, and 7 associations (14%) showed small‐study effects.

Only one of these SNPs showed a nominally significant association ( P < .05) in our data (rs909253, proxy for rs1041981, r 2 = 0.93; OR = 1.12; P = .005).

(i) The MR results using the Wald ratio or IVW methods show a nominally significant association with LUAD or LUSC risk ( P value < 0.05).