“nominally significant”

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.

All nominally significant associations ( p ≤ 0.05) with BPD or a BPD-related phenotype were considered for replication analysis in our study.

After false discovery rate ( FDR ) correction, pathway enrichment analyses for genes harboring nominally significant ( p < 0.05) probes identified 44 significant pathways ( q < 0.05), and 5 pathways were related to lipid metabolism.

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

As none of the results were significant after this correction at FDR < 0.20 and given the exploratory nature of this study, all results nominally significant at p < 0.05 were deemed of interest and discussed accordingly.

To assess whether the observed number of studies with nominally significant results ( p < 0.05) within a meta‐analysis was larger than the expected number, the excess of significance test was undertaken. 24 An excess of significant findings within a meta‐analysis can be an indication of publication bias, selective analysis or bias in outcome reporting, resulting in underpowered small studies with spurious significant findings more likely to be published within the field.

Proteins significantly associated with hippocampal volume and WMHs Using partial Spearman correlation, we found nominally significant associations ( P < .05) between 377 proteins and hippocampal volume in all individuals.

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.

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%).

The ANCOVA for age was significant (HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DPA1 p < 0.0005, while CD74 was nominally significant p = 0.05).

Of the 245 UKB associations (226 previously reported + 19 previously unreported associations), we find that 72% (176) show at least nominally significant ( p < 0.05 ) age-specific effects within UK women ( Figure 2 C). 37 of these 176 associations, representing 15% of all associations, have a slope with a genome-wide significant p value ( p < 5 × 10 − 8 ), constituting a more stringent criterion (strong and moderate evidence in Figure 2C).

The rs1046322 and rs9457 polymorphisms showed nominally significant ( p < 0.05) association in all three (type 1, type 2 and combined) analyses, which remained significant in all cases after FDR correction for multiple testing.

We repeated the analysis using both prevalent type 2 diabetes at baseline and incident type 2 diabetes during follow-up. We estimated the power that our study had to observe a nominally significant association ( p < 0.05) of each individual SNP or the genetic predisposition score with type 2 diabetes, based on the expected effect size (and its SE) of each individual SNP or the score on type 2 diabetes.

Finally, to characterize the functional relevance of genes driving the association between effects of LPS on MR imaging measures and expression of cell-type specific genes, we ran a Gene Ontology analysis using genes that were: (i) nominally significant p < 0.05 (MR imaging measure vs. gene expression correlation), and (ii) within the 10th decile in cell specificity for a given cell type (IT4/5 excitatory, or Parvalbumin inhibitory).

The resulting p -values were considered nominally significant at p < 0.05.

In total, we found 227 nominally significant ( P < 0.05) differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the treated and control groups, with 23 DEGs significant after adjustment for multiple correction ( Fig. 2c , Table S2).

Indeed, we noted that several nicotinic receptor encoding genes ( CHRNA3/4/5/6 and CHRNB1/4 ) showed weak but nominally significant (P < 0.05) associations in the MAGMA analyses ( Supplementary Table S13 ).

In the left hemisphere, nominally significant differences (uncorrected p < 0.05) were observed in three parcels: lingual gyrus ( p = 0.033), inferior temporal gyrus ( p = 0.041), and precuneus ( p = 0.048).

Patients receiving etanercept monotherapy had less deterioration of PtGA and PtJP scores versus those assigned to methotrexate monotherapy, with a nominally significant treatment difference observed at almost all time points for PtGA and PtJP at weeks 12 and 36 ( p < 0.05; Fig. 1 ).

1815 genes were found to be differentially expressed at a nominally significant level (p<0.05); 809 decreased in expression in the KD samples, while 1106 increased.

We identified 74 nominally significant differentially methylated regions ( p < 0.05) in the mitochondrial genome, between anatomically separate cortical regions and the cerebellum in matched samples ( N = 3 matched donors).

For any outcome where an adiposity index showed a nominally significant independent association ( P < .05), we proceeded to the third step to assess the robustness of these associations.

Aligning with the results from the MR analyses, 15/20 of nominally significant ( p < 0.05) sex-specific associations remained similar ( Z -test p > 0.05) in the cross-sex analyses, pointing to genetic pleiotropy rather than T action as the basis for many metabolic associations.

The MR‐Egger test showed a nominally significant causal effect ( P <0.05) of CHD on a lower level of mtDNA CN (β=−0.030 [95% CI, −0.055 to −0.0045]; P =0.029) (Table S7 ).

In total, 28 genes in the European-American sample and ten genes in the African-American sample were nominally significant (i.e., the observed test statistic differed from neutral expectations at p < 0.05) in one or more tests of the allele frequency distribution ( Figure 1 ).