“nominally significant”

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)].

All nominally significant p- values were considered significant at 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 ).

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).

All nominally significant ( P <0.05) associations and corresponding trait distributions are shown in Table 2 .

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

18 Nevertheless, considering the sample size limitations, throughout the manuscript we show nominally significant results as p≤0.05 and results significant after adjustment for multiple testing as FDR≤0.05.

We identified 1,311 nominally significant (P < 0.05) differentially methylated positions (DMPs) associated with sex ( Supplementary Table 4 ), of which 1,249 were hypomethylated in females.

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

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 ).

The 36 nominally significant miRNAs ( p < 0.05) identified in the PDN/PDD comparison from LIMMA were used to classify disease state (See Figure 2B ), though with more limited accuracy than the PD-control model (absolute error rate = 13.8%, sensitivity = 81.2%, specificity = 88.9%).

Eleven of these miRNAs had nominally significant strain differences ( p < 0.05) (Fig. 1 ).

We selectively included 44 diseases (excluding cancer, which is a limitation to be noted) in the first part of phenome-wide association analysis (PheWAS) and identified nominally significant associations ( P < 0.05) between the SES-associated variants and CHD.

All were nominally significant (P < 0.05).

After adjusting for potential confounders, hsCRP, ICAM, P-selectin, IL-6, TNFR1, and MPO were significantly higher among current smokers at a Bonferroni adjusted p-value threshold (p<0.003), while the following biomarkers did not reach the multiple testing threshold, but were nominally significant (p<0.05): E-selectin, MMP9, and TIMP-2 ( Fig 1 ; Table B in S1 File ).

We retained for downstream analyses all loci with nominally significant binomial p values ( p < 0.05) and at least 2 reads (10%) mapped to any allele.

Of these, five showed nominally significant ( p < 0.05) association with MS ( Figure 1 , Table 2 ).

Out of 14 shared knowns that had genome-wide significant associations in OE, 7 had nominally significant ( p < 0.05) and directionally consistent associations in MCDS.

A total of 19 HLA alleles had nominally significant maternal and/or fetal effects on BW ( P <0.05; Supplementary Table S7 , available as Supplementary data at IJE online); 13 of the 19 alleles had evidence for a maternal effect only, four alleles primarily had evidence for a fetal effect only and two alleles had evidence of both.

Fisher-Irwin exact tests of association determine the best possible mode of genetic effect at a nominally significant p-value < 0.05.

Most of these associations remained significant or nominally significant ( P <0.05) in analyses with adjustment for other LE8 components.

They first extracted nominally significant signals ( p <0.05) from three GWAS studies (WTCCC, German, and NIMH GAIN datasets; Fangerau et al., 2004 ; Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, 2007 ; Baum et al., 2008 ), and prioritized potential candidates based on independent, converging lines of evidence from various bioinformatics resources.

AG), and there was a nominally significant difference between the two groups with respect to log-additive model ( P < 0.05, Table 3 ).

All the associations were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) except those for the Cumulus-white MRS with the PRS for overall breast cancer and with the PRS for ER+ breast cancer.

Here, we restricted the GRSs to index variants from the previous study 21 that were not only GWAS significant for at least one trait, but also nominally significant ( p -value < 0.05) for the remaining traits.