“nominally significant”

The expression of five of these 64 genes ( HLA-DQA1 , INPP5D , SPDYE3 , TSPOAP1 , and SIGLEC11 ) were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in the analysis of the combined blood and brain data (Table 2 , Supplemental Table 4 , Supplementary Fig. 2 ).

Many of our networks had nominally significant (p < 0.05) overlaps with the cell-type-specific DEGs in neuronal cell types, which include both upper and deep layer excitatory neurons and inhibitory interneurons ( Figure 3 C and Table S12 ).

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%).

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 ).

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).

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).

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

Of the nominally significant associations (0.00125 < P < 0.05), several reflect relationships that have also been reported previously, including associations between the ‘vigorous exercise’ factor and breast cancer 44 incidence for females and incidence of all cancers 45 for males (decreasing risks with higher scores), and between the ‘alcohol’ factor and bowel 46 and prostate cancer 47 incidence for males (increasing risks with higher scores).

While several features showed nominally significant correlations at uncorrected p < 0.05 , no features survived FDR correction at the 0.05 threshold, reflecting the moderate effect sizes and sample size constraints.

We took into account only those genes that reached significance (nominally significant p -value < 0.05).

All associations were performed in non-diabetic individuals and were statistically nominally significant at a level of P < 0.05 and adjusted for age, sex and ln BMI.

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

Among these, all genes met FDR <0.05 in Group 1, 563 of 585 in Group 2, and none in the lineage-balanced Group 3, though all remained nominally significant ( p < 0.05).

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).

The table summarizes probe ID (Probe_ID), HGNC gene symbol (Gene), reference sequence ID (RefSeq_ID), average detection P-value for a probe over all samples (AvgDetPval), number of samples for which the detection P-value for a probe was nominally significant (p<0.05 – CountDetPval), indication of whether the probe is a seed gene for the module (Modseed), mean (log2) expression of the probe across all samples (MeanExpr), percentile rank of the probe’s mean (log2) expression level among all probes (MeanExprPercentile), module assignment based on expanded

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

There was predominantly a candidate gene approach using common alleles, which despite small sample sizes (median 93 [IQR 40–222]) with no trend to an increase over time, generated a high proportion (74.5%) of nominally significant (p<0.05) reported associations suggesting the possibility of significance-chasing bias.

Nominally significant items/reasons (P < 0.05) are highlighted.

Longitudinal assessment of circulating levels of 29 immune biomarkers revealed that mean levels of nine molecules (IL-1β, IL-1RA, IFN-γ, eotaxin, MCP1, MDC, MIF, RANTES, and HGF) showed changes across the experimental time points that were nominally significant (p < 0.05, Table 1 ).

We then applied sensitivity analyses for nominally significant results ( P -value < 0.05), namely: heterogeneity test (Cochran’s Q), horizontal pleiotropy (MR Egger intercept), detection of outliers with MR Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier test (MR-PRESSO v1.0) 46 and directionality validation.

Eleven out of the 16 SNPs in this genomic area are nominally significant (10 −6 <p<.05) providing additional support for the involvement of EFNA5 in AD.

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 associations remained nominally significant ( P <0.05) following an adjustment for intakes of other foods ( Table 2 ).

In total, 116 associations were identified to be associated with AF at the nominally significant level ( p < 0.05, Supplementary Table S4 ).

The sentinel variant rs62040020, which resided within an intron of Jupiter microtubule associated homolog 2 ( JPT2 ) on chromosome 16 (effect allele frequency (EAF)=10.6%), was measured in all six studies with a high imputation quality (r 2 >0.88 across all six studies) and was nominally significant (p<0.05) in four of the six studies ( supplementary table 2 and figure 4 ).