“nominally significant”

Searches for clustering of SNPs with nominally-significant case vs control differences in each European-American sample We identified 3125 clusters of SNPs that displayed nominally significant, p<0.05 case vs control differences for χ 2 results from dbGAP samples and 2931 clusters with nominally significant t test results from NIDA/MNB samples.

5 A), while Hannum’s IEAA, Zhang’s EEAA, and raw epiTOC were only nominally significant ( p value < 0.05).

We considered as conservative joint criteria for confirmed association: 1) identification of the same high-risk allele in the GWA study and both of the replication studies; 2) nominally significant ( P < 0.05) association in both replication cohorts or significant association in one and marginal association in the other replication cohort; 3) significant (Bonferroni uncorrected P < 1.0 × 10 -2 ; 0.05 / 5) combined replication stage 1 + 2 P value; and 4) a genome-wide significant ( P < 5 × 10 -8 ) ( ref. 7 ) overall combined P value.

as potential biomarkers, two were not identified in our study, one (Hemoglobin subunit β) was found to be nominally significant ( p < 0.05) but did not pass adjustment for multiple testing, and the remaining five were identified but not found to be significant in our study.

The meaningful and nominally significant thresholds were set at p < 0.05/138 = 0.0004 and p < 0.05, respectively, out of 138 tests conducted.

We discovered 87 nominally significant genes with differing ASE between IRF1 conditions (Fisher’s exact test p < 0.05).

To explore the utility of this concept in interpreting our KGD data, we mapped the nominally significant KGDs (p ≤ 0.05) identified for each cancer driver gene across all histotypes onto the high-confidence STRING functional interaction network ( Franceschini et al., 2013 ) (see Experimental Procedures ).

We performed the association analyses with FG, FI, HOMA-B, HOMA-IR and BMI SDS for the 42 variants, assuming an additive genetic model implemented in linear regression and detected nominally significant associations ( P < 0.05) at eight FG, eight T2D and two FI loci with the phenotypes tested (Material and Methods, Supplementary Material, Table S1 ).

Fourteen of 18 drugs exhibited nominally significant inter-subtype variability ( P < 0.05), with the exceptions being panobinostat, ruxolitinib, bortezomib and daunorubicin (Fig. 2a , Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 4 ).

Twelve signals passed QC and were polymorphic in the de novo genotyping cohort, of which four were nominally significant ( Supplementary Table 6 ; P <0.05, minimum P =0.001).

2a ), and 53 showed nominally significant associations in the CKDGen cohorts alone ( p < 0.05; Supplementary Data 4 ).

In mediation analyses, nine metabolites and five plasma proteins showed nominally significant mediation effects in the SGLT2–DR pathway (uncorrected P < 0.05; Supplementary Table S16 ).

Although the association between rs4916251 and AAA was only nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in one of the cohorts tested (the AC), it is important to note that the AC was the largest study with the greatest statistical power, and that the meta-analysis estimate showed little evidence of heterogeneity ( I 2 = 13%).

Using a nominally significant cutoff ( p < 0.05), 30 module-trait relationships emerge, with a range from zero to six significantly correlated modules per trait.

Interestingly, SCZ showed a nominally significant proportion of caQTL-mediated heritability in LCLs (p<0.05, MESC), consistent with the hypothesis that B cells may play some role in SCZ pathogenesis ( Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, 2014 ; van Mierlo et al., 2019 ).

Eleven SNPs had ORs >1, and 5 from ADAMTS9 , WFS1 , CDKAL1 , JAZF1 , and TCF7L2 trended or had nominally significant evidence of T2D association ( P < 0.05).

Nominally significant findings ( P < .05) that did not meet these thresholds were reported cautiously.

By removing each SNP from the MR analysis sequentially, if the association is no longer nominally significant ( P > 0.05) with the SNP removed, this indicates that a particular SNP is driving the association.

Results: Among the 5 subjects, there were 132 nominally significant correlations (p< 0.05) between mRNA expression and MRI activity.

Among these CpGs, 129 were nominally significant ( p value < 0.05) in at least one of our models (total number of ACEs: 14 CpGs; total number of ACEs categorical, 1–3 vs. 0: 8 CpGs; 4–10 vs. 0: 12 CpGs; 4–10 vs. 1–3: 15 CpGs; mutually adjusted, emotional abuse: 13 CpGs; physical abuse: 11 CpGs; sexual abuse: 11 CpGs; emotional neglect: 19 CpGs; physical neglect: 10 CpGs; domestic violence: 15 CpGs; substance abuse: 20 CpGs; mental illness: 23 CpGs; incarceration: 13 CpGs; divorce: 9 CpGs), although none remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons in our EWAS (Additional file 2 : Table S1).

Although 16 combinations were nominally significant ( P <.05), none survived the Bonferroni correction.

Results and Discussion In the present replication effort, a nominally significant signal ( P <0.05) was detected for six of the 19 investigated SNPs: rs35349669 at INPP5D ( P =0.023); rs190982 at MEF2C ( P =0.0062); rs1476679 at ZCWPW1 ( P =0.00065); rs17125944 at FERMT2 ( P =0.018); rs8035452 at SPPL2A ( P =0.031); and rs74615166 at TRIP4 ( P =0.0032) ( Table 1 ).

236 (68.6%) of these 344 CpGs were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) in our study, while 22 (6.4%) remained significant after accounting for the multiple tests of the replication effort ( p < 0.05/344 ~ 0.0001) (Table 2 ).

The MR-Egger (SIMEX) method yielded nominally significant ( P < 0.05) causal effects ( P = 0.032).

Candidate gene approach None of the imputed variants previously reported as gait speed candidate genes such as ACE , ACTN3, COMT and APOE reached a nominally significant (p<0.05) threshold ( Supplementary Table 3 ).