“nominally significant”

We defined this set as cis -eQTLs identified in LCLs or transformed fibroblasts in GTEx ( FDR < 0.05), which were not even nominally significant ( P > 0.05) in GTEx breast tissue.

For this purpose, nominally significant (p < 0.05) TWMR effects were retained and their direction was compared to the direction of the probe with the smallest nominally significant p value (p < 0.05) in the mirror association model for the corresponding gene ( ± 10 kb) and trait.

A strong correlation (|r|≥ 0.80) between the gene expression and DNA methylation profiles was observed at 27% of loci (166 CpGs in 153 genes) in HCT116 cells, out of them, 47 CpGs corresponding to 44 genes were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) ( Supplementary Table 3 ) indicating that observed hypermethylations affect cellular function by altering gene expression in cancer cell lines.

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 ).

For CD4 + T cells, baseline β7 integrin expression had a nominally significant (unadjusted p < 0.05) effect on the following genes: ITGA4, GATA3, GZMA, BATF, HIFA, ICOS and IRF4, although none of these genes had an FDR below 0.1.

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.

A nominally significant IVW result ( P < .05) was considered evidence of a potential causal effect if β estimates were consistent in direction across methods and sensitivity analyses showed no significant pleiotropy or heterogeneity.

Using this approach, JoineRML identified 10 proteins with nominally significant association with the disease risk (Wald test p < 0.05), of which two had measurements from at least five individuals in both classes and AUROC >0.75 in at least the two last evaluation points (Figure 4a ).

Therefore, our nominally significant results (p < 0.05) require replication in larger, independent, and preferably longitudinal cohorts.

At a nominally significant level (P<0.05) only three loci were associated with vertebral fracture and all 14 BMD loci were associated with non-vertebral fracture , but these difference in effects between fracture sites were not significant.

Among 15 associations with more than two instrumental variables (9 metabolites, 7 FinnGen outcomes), seven associations (3 metabolites, 6 outcomes) remained nominally significant ( P -value < 0.05) in MRPRESSO outlier test.

DHX58 and SWAP70 showed protein‐level associations with CAD (FDR <0.05) and colocalization probabilities between 0.5 and 0.7, with nominally significant associations ( P <0.05, unadjusted) at the methylation and expression levels.

If the MR analysis results were nominally significant ( P < 0.05), we considered that there might be a causal relationship between the intestinal flora and the lipids.

Two associations ( NDST4 and ASD; RORB and childhood autism) of the three that were nominally significant ( P -value ≤ 0.05) in the original analyses remain so.

In addition, nominally significant differences (ie, P < 0.05) between groups were obtained in secondary analyses comparing the treatment groups with respect to measures of pain interference with function and sleep using items from the BPI interference question.

CEBP and MEF2 motif-containing OCRs survived correction for multiple testing in macrophages and were nominally significant (uncorrected P < 0.05) in microglia.

Results: In primary data, nominally significant ( P < 0.05) differential methylation between groups was observed for over 100 CpG sites, including genes involved in immunomodulation of the NF-kappaB inflammation pathway, endocannabinoid signaling, and inflammatory mediator regulation of TRP channels.

( 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ) Four SNPs were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in at least one sex/menopause group: two SNPs in premenopausal women only, one SNP in women only (premenopausal and postmenopausal), and one in men and postmenopausal women only.

However, in turn, only a fraction of these present nominally significant ( P < .05) tissue-by-subtype interactions, and hence harbor effects that are different between the 2 tissues (310 of 1204; 25.7%).

In subgroup analysis, the six VTE risk genes were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in both female and male groups and showed the same effect directions as in the full sample (Supplementary Fig. 2 ).

Seven nominally significant (P < 0.05) EPD vs.

In the MAGMA gene-property analysis, the abundance of hsCRP-associated genes expression was nominally significant in the liver and blood tissues ( P < 0.05, Fig S7) .

Except for one variant located at 37,927,476 bp, all MICALL1 variants included in this test have MAF < 0.005 and were protective (OR = 0.26 to 0.41) and nominally significant ( p < .05) (Table 5 ).

Although hypofractionation (hypofractionation or extreme hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation) was nominally significant for rectal bleeding on univariate analysis ( P = .05), it did not remain significant independently of the inclusion of the BED V55Gy cutoff point (OR, 3.6; P = .08).

All associations were directionally consistent with our analysis with an almost perfect correlation of effects ( r 2 = 98.33), and 118 were at least nominally significant ( P < 0.05) (Extended Data Fig. 2 ).