“nominally significant”

Gene-based association signals of genes that showed significant associations with CAD ( P < 2.72 × 10 − 6 ) were compared to that of nominally significant genes related to plasma lipid levels ( P < 0.05, Fig. 4 ).

For nominally significant interactions (unadjusted p < 0.05), we reported estimates reflecting differences in treatment responses between clinical subgroups (Table 3 ).

We then prioritized 97 CpGs and 10 DMRs by requiring these CpGs and DMRs to be also FDR-significant (i.e., FDR < 0.05) in our previous brain sample meta-analysis 5 and at least nominally significant (i.e., P- value < 0.05) in our current blood meta-analysis (Fig. 2 ).

We did, however, observe nominally significant correlations ( p -value < 0.05) between other pairs of tested neurodegenerative diseases, except for FTD, for which there were no nominally significant correlations (Supplementary Table 1 ).

Although this analysis did not yield any significant genes after multiple testing correction, 15 genes were nominally significant ( p < 0.05), corresponding to a 2-fold enrichment with respect to the null hypothesis (Supplementary Fig. 7c ).

The associations supported by more than 1,000 cases and significant effects at a p -value of <0.001 were graded as “recommended.” Nominally significant associations ( p < 0.05) were considered weak evidence.

In summary, prior to correction for multiple testing, one nominally significant ( p < 0.05) finding in the alpha-2-adrenergic receptor 2A gene ( ADRA2A ) was noted.

We defined significant novel associations as those that were at least nominally significant in replication (P<0.05) with consistent direction of effect and had an overall P < 5×10 −8 (genome-wide significance) in the discovery and replication cohorts combined.

Although with small effects (absolute delta betas < 5%), two CpGs in KTN1 were nominally significant (cg14002714 and cg21059882; p < 0.05).

Across the 49 discovery lipid hits, 20 were also mapped by the Ottensmann panel; of those, 18 (90%) showed a concordant direction of effect in the Finnish sample, and eight (40%) were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) for an MDD association ( Figure S4 ).

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.

In addition, the ovarian cancer patients had a nominally significant decrease in the number of 12 and 22 genotype carriers compared to the controls (p = 0.05) suggesting that the duplication may be protective for the disease with an odds ratio of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.53–0.99).

However, 38,797 probes were nominally significant (at p < 0.05) in the caudate and 35,622 probes in the ACC - Fig. 1 and Supplementary File 1 .

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

Genes with nominally significant differential expression ( p < 0.05) between the chronic and acute time points in untreated or P. gingivalis - or C. pneumoniae -treated ApoE -/- mice are tabulated in Figure 3 .

Out of 27 SNPs, correlation with absolute latitude was nominally significant (p < 0.05) for 13 of them.

Analysis limited to the younger group identified 665 nominally significant ( p < 0.05) autosomal genes, with only three genes achieving FDR significance.

In LA, 15 of the EUR GWS variants were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) and 2 were significantly associated with AUD (rs12048727 and rs1229984).

Using the cis-pQTL instrument definition, 75 of the 1,013 associations (7.4%) that were investigated using MR IVW were nominally significant ( p < 0.05), while considering an FDR of 10% or less, 12 associations were significant, five of which were replicated ( p < 0.05) in analyses using the cis-eQTL instrument definition.

While we estimated a nominally significant (p<0.05) p-value for only 9 of these overlapping SNVs, the SNVs whose estimated effects are in the same direction as previous literature have significance tests that are enriched for small p-values ( Figure 2A ).

Similar patterns of results were observed in the parent-offspring trio analyses (eTable 8 in Supplement 2 [ie, 2 nominally significant associations between maternal allele scores and NDDs]) ( P < .05; M1 and SCQ-RRB at 8 years: β = 1.73E-03, SE = 8.08E-04; and M2 and SCQ-SCI at 8 years: β = 3.31E-03, SE = 1.46E-03), and there was evidence for association between offspring scores and NDDs ( P < .05; M1 and SCQ-RRB at 8 years: β = −

Of the 66 significant loci in the European Caucasian meta-analysis, 56 were nominally significant ( P < 0.05), and 37 after Bonferroni correction ( P < 7.6e-04) in the meta-analyzed replication cohort.

To combine the tests, we intersected significant SNPs by testing for differential ASE among genes with a nominally significant effect-size test (p < 0.05) and concordant ASE directionality (157 out of 289 genes concordant), resulting in seven significant differential eQTLs (Benjamini-Hochberg FDR < 0.05, Fig 2D ).

In these analyses, 8 of 28 publicly available GWAS summary statistics displayed nominally significant ( P < .05) genetic correlations with TRS, of which 5 survived multiple testing correction (FDER p < 0.05; Figure 4 ; eTable 4 in Supplement 1 ).

Very little epistasis was apparentin the hotspot regions, with less than 7% of trans methQTL in these hotspots possessing a nominally significant (P<0.05) epistatic interaction, and less than 1%of trans methQTLwith a significant epistatic interaction(see Supplementary Table 3 ).