Barely Significant
← all phrases

nominally significant

808 sentences · 808 papers · 9,414 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.08

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

nominally significantP = 1.9 × 10 −140.0× alphagold
All exposures showed at least nominally significant associations with increased mortality, most significantly for SBP (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P = 1.9 × 10 −14 ); the association of WMH with mortality was no longer significant after adjusting for educational level or interim stroke status (eTables 9 and 10 in Supplement 1 ).
nominally significantP < 5.0 × 10 −80.0× alphagold
Including rs74653330 (p.Ala481Thr), a missense lead variant in OCA2 , a total of 12 independent nonsynonymous variants associated with skin color traits were identified in the GWAS (Supplementary Data 5 ): 1 in a previously unreported locus, 9 in previously reported loci, and 2 in nominally significant loci (top variants of 2 loci did not pass the genome-wide significance level, P < 5.0 × 10 −8 ).
nominally significantp = 2.15 × 10 –70.0× alphagold
Although they did not survive false discovery rate correction (FDR) for multiple testing (Additional file 1 : Table S3), the nominally significant pairwise comparisons showed enrichment for π c differences related to hematological and metabolic traits (hematological fold-enrichment = 4.45, p = 2.15 × 10 –7 ; metabolic fold-enrichment = 4.05, p = 4.01 × 10 –6 ).
nominally significantP < 1 × 10 −60.0× alphagold
6, the text now reading “Numbers of SNPs that were nominally significant ( P < 1 × 10 −6 ) in the IPF GWAS meta-analysis and also eQTL” originally read “Heatmaps presenting the numbers of eQTLs that were nominally significant ( P < 1 × 10 −6 ) in the IPF GWAS meta-analysis” and has now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.
nominally significantp < 1 × 10 −50.0× alphagold
Cross-population transferability of loci Of the nominally significant ( p < 1 × 10 −5 ) loci in the short and long sleep duration analyses in the AFR GWAS, none reached even a nominal significance threshold of p < 0.05 in the EUR analysis, and none demonstrate a lower p-value in the cross-population analysis.
nominally significantp value = 1.72E-050.0× alphagold
Considering both genders together, we observe a nominally significant increased expression of App / APP in TG mice compared to WT controls in neurons ( p value = 1.72E-05, adjusted p value = 0.33) using a Poisson generalized linear model [ 17 ].
nominally significantp = 5.4 × 10 –40.0× alphagold
However, we detected an eQTL signal tagged by rs11235459 which was nominally significant in both CSF pTau GWAS ( p = 5.4 × 10 –4 , OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.89–0.97]) and INPPL1 ROSMAP DLPFC eQTL catalogue ( p = 9.1 × 10 –4 , beta = -0.06 [95% CI −0.02 to −0.09]) (Fig. 9 b).
nominally significantp=0.057 −20.0× alphagold
Preliminary examination revealed a nominally significant relationship (B=−0.122, t=−1.91, p=0.057 −2 tailed) in this study, following a priori hypothesis of an association of GARS and ASI predictability of risk in which a one-tailed analysis revealed (P=0.028) for the drug severity.
nominally significantp = 0.057−20.0× alphagold
Preliminary examination revealed a nominally significant relationship (B = −0.122, t = −1.91, p = 0.057−2 tailed) in this study, following apriori hypothesis of an association of GARS and ASI predictability of risk in which a one-tailed analysis revealed (P=0.028) for the drug severity (greater than four alleles predicted unspecified drug severity risk).