“nominally significant”

None of the five distinct significant SNPs that were listed in this study had a nominally significant association ( P < 0.05) with schizophrenia in the GWAS by Ripke et al . 38 We found no genetic correlation between syncope risk and schizophrenia ( Figure 3 ).

The mediating effects of three body fat indexes ( BMI, WHR and body fat percentage ), which were nominally significant in both models ( P < 0.05), were further evaluated for nature indirect effects ( NIE ) and nature direct effects ( NDE ) on the impact of age on diabetes oncome by VanderWeele's mediation approach 25 , 26 , 27 as follows: M B o d y _ f a t _ i n d e x e s = β 0 + β A g e ⋅ A g e + B ⋅ C o v a r i a

All significant (FDR<5%) and nominally significant ( p < 0.05) associations for all outcomes are shown in Tables S2 and S3 .

Furthermore, substantially more AAM signals showed at least nominally significant associations (GWAS P < 0.05) with relatively early (102, 31.1%) or relatively late facial hair (152, 46.3%) compared to ~16 expected by chance for each outcome (Supplementary Data 1 ).

ROH hotspots contain genes with diverse functions Regarding the gene content of genomic segments co-localising with both high homozygosity regions and ROH hotspots (CHI4:42,552,375–48,378,207 bp), the functional enrichment analysis highlighted several gene ontology terms with nominally significant enrichment ( P -value < 0.05) (Additional file 7 : Table S5).

Markers were included in the network if they showed a nominally significant association with GHQ (p < 0.05) in the linear regression analyses.

In addition, we identified 61 genes that were nominally significant association ( P < 0.05) with both tau and amyloid deposition including APOE , TOMM40 , and COL5A2 ( P < 0.005) with both tau and amyloid pathologies (Supplementary Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 13 ).

The only nominally significant ( p < 0.05) difference among the randomization groups was for height, which was highest in the metformin group.

Out of 72 tested individual CpG sites, four were nominally significant ( p < 0.05), associated with the genes CRH, CRHBP and CRHR1.

We find that all 36 were at least nominally significant and 32 codes have a p -value < 0.05 and, after multiple testing correction, 25 of 36 ICD10 codes are significant in both cohorts, thereby indicating the consistency of our findings.

The association was no longer nominally significant when adjusted for LDL-C levels ( p > 0.05).

Further, five additional SNPs were nominally significant ( P < 0.05).

Lead and nominally significant SNPs ( p ≤ 0.05) for PCIF1 were examined.

Both these SNPs were nominally significant (p<0.05) within males and females, however sex did not modify the association.

Overall, 11/17 (65%) associations were nominally significant at p<0.05, 9/17 (53%) at p<0.001.

For instance, while only the association between brain network connectivity and AF survived Bonferroni correction ( P < 2.62 × 10−4), several other phenotypes showed nominally significant associations ( P < .05) with CVDs, and also, to more flexibly balance the Type I and Type II errors, We applied a false discovery rate control to the results of all IVW methods (Table S4, Supplementary Digital content, https://links.lww.com/MD/P315 ).

However, the effects reported in Bäumler’s study [ 3 ] were small and nominally significant (two-tailed p < .05) only for bulkiness.

Of the 21 variants, 6 were nominally significant (p < 0.05).

It was observed that 7 of 16 trait pairs had nominally significant genetic correlations ( p < 0.05), among which all of them exhibited a positive correlation (rg ranging from 0.050 to 0.199).

This work first estimated the effect size (i.e., allelic fold change, aFC) of the top ieQTL for each ieGene from ASE data using the script phaser_cis_var.py in phASER (v1.1.1) [ 102 ] and considered only ieQTL with nominally significant ASE ( p ‐value < 0.05) data in more than 10 heterozygous individuals with more than eight reads for a gene.

We defined significant novel associations as those nominally significant (p < 0.05) in the replication study and with an overall (discovery and replication combined) p value <5 × 10 −8 .

Three CpGs were nominally significant (p<0.05) in the Raine Study; none of the effect estimate confidence intervals contained zero and all had the same direction as ALSPAC.

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

Most of the association information derives from the main effect test, but the intervention interaction tests have rather different P -values across these SNPs, with rs7705343 having nominally significant ( P < 0.05) interactions with each of E-alone, DMQ, and CaD, while interactions in relation to rs4415084 are not significant for any of the interventions.

The distribution of nominally significant ( P <0.05) associations between cancer-specific PRS and cognitive outcomes included inverse and positive associations, roughly as expected by chance.