“nominally significant”

Furthermore, when applying a sequential analysis approach in an N-of-1 framework, we were able to determine that 13 of the 15 individuals with nominally significant systolic blood pressure changes, and 14 of the 18 individuals with diastolic blood pressure changes over six months demonstrated this trend (p < 0.05) by the fifth month of their study enrollment.

Association analysis was performed on these 7,369 transcripts which resulted in the identification of 461 FDR-significant GA-related transcripts (1,611 nominally significant transcripts; nominal p -value < 0.05).

Step 5: We generate a ranked list of drug repositioning candidates and MOA categories that show enrichment of nominally significant ( p < 0.05) gene-based associations (MAGMA and S-PrediXcan) across compounds within each category.

A strong correlation (|r|≥ 0.80) between the gene expression and DNA methylation profiles was observed at 27% of loci (166 CpGs in 153 genes) in HCT116 cells, out of them, 47 CpGs corresponding to 44 genes were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) ( Supplementary Table 3 ) indicating that observed hypermethylations affect cellular function by altering gene expression in cancer cell lines.

Results Differential expression Overall, 7565 genes were differentially expressed (nominally significant p < 0.05) in small intestinal biopsies between cases with a-CD and controls, and 5244 genes remained differentially expressed after adjusting for multiple comparisons.

The higher relative abundance for these taxa was nominally significant in carriers ( P ≤ 0.05), but non-significant after correction for multiple testing which is not unexpected given the small sample size.

Differential gene expression analyses of CD11b + cells in VAT and SAT from individuals with obesity revealed nominally significant differences in the gene expression profile (FDR p < 0.05, absolute fold change > 1.5; Figure 1A,B ).

Implementation of risk variables in models for different clinical contexts To determine which variables predict disease risk, we assigned a score to each variable by (1) using 10-fold cross-validated lasso regression to select the optimal model as a function of the tentatively replicated variables [ 15 ], (2) assigning one point to the variables that were retained and nominally significant ( p < 0.05) and (3) bootstrapping the previous steps 100 times.

Due to the small sample size, 8 nominally significant SNPs ( P < 0.05) were used in the downstream Mendelian randomisation analysis.

Only those SNPs are shown that have a nominally significant ( p < 0.05 ) association with at least one of the latent variables.

For three cancers (OV, BRCA, LUAD), differential coexpression was nominally significant ( p < 0.05) for all soft thresholds.

Differentially abundant proteins in each group were defined based on the following criteria: Proteins identified in at least 60% of samples in at least one group and nominally significant difference in protein abundance (unadjusted p < 0.05).

We evaluated how well independent pQTLs reported by the INTERVAL study 9 ( n = 3301) replicated in our results and found 75.6% to be both directionally consistent and nominally significant ( P < 0.05) (Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Figs. 6 and 7 ).

To obtain stringent TFBS predictions, an empirical score distribution was estimated for each PWM for each species' genome as the set of all nominally significant ( P < 0.05) motif scores identified within the target set of promoter sequences [pwm_scan -s 1 -p ln(0.05)].

Among the top 10 CpG sites from the meta‐analysis, five CpG sites were at least nominally significant (unadjusted p value < 0.05) in all three cohorts, namely cg18609149 ( AC009950.2 ) for p‐tau, cg00679256 ( RP11‐56I23.1 ) and cg09606840 ( DNPH1 ) for Aβ42+ vs.

While these results were nominally significant (p < 0.05), they did not maintain statistical significance after Hochberg correction.

The following criteria were used to determine the differential abundance of proteins in the septic/aseptic group: (i) proteins that were identified in at least 60% of the samples in at least one group and (ii) for which a nominally significant difference in protein abundance was observed between conditions (unadjusted p < 0.05).

Analysis limited to the younger group identified 665 nominally significant ( p < 0.05) autosomal genes, with only three genes achieving FDR significance.

In the AFR samples, we found no significant effects in any of the examined p -value thresholds, although all but one were nominally significant ( p < 0.05).

KEGG pathway analysis identified 11 significantly altered pathways after FDR correction and 64 nominally significant pathways based on raw p -values ( p < 0.05) ( Table S2 ).

A total of 205 risk factor associations were found to be nominally significant ( p < 0.05).

Using a one-sided Fisher exact test we tested for over representation of significant meQTL SNPs in nominally significant GWAS associations ( p -value < 0.05) using GWAS data from the CARDIoGRAM consortium for CHD [ 20 ] and the DIAGRAM consortium for T2D [ 18 ].

In SMR analyses of gene expression and migraine within the Finnish cohort, six genes—EP300, HDAC3, SIRT1, AARS2, SLC16A1, and SMARCA4—showed nominally significant associations ( P < 0.05).

We did, however, observe nominally significant correlations ( p -value < 0.05) between other pairs of tested neurodegenerative diseases, except for FTD, for which there were no nominally significant correlations (Supplementary Table 1 ).

Raw P < 0.05 was considered nominally significant, whereas FDR-adjusted P < 0.05 was considered significant after correction for multiple comparisons.