“nominally significant”

Notably, in an analysis of a multiethnic dataset with unrelated AD cases and controls from the Alzheimer’s disease sequencing project (ADSP; Table 1 ), rs74074811 showed nominally significant association of these same two RIN3 mutations with AD risk in the Hispanic population ( P = 0.035).

Cross‐fostering had a nominally significant effect on the DNA methylation pattern for Pde4d (Fline: F 1,37 = 4.81; p = 0.035) but significantly interacted with genetic line (Line × Fline: F 1,37 = 9.22; p = 0.004; Figure 1A ).

Among the seven highlighted cancer types, we saw a multiply-corrected significant positive estimate for combined head/neck cancer (OR 1.51, p = 0.001), and nominally significant positive estimates for colorectal (OR 1.21, p = 0.035) and oesophageal (OR 1.42 p = 0.033) cancer.

The difference in the proportions of patients with ≥1 TEAE (10.3%; 95% confidence interval, −0.3% to −21.0%) was nominally significant ( P = .0355).

Lateralization analysis Our lateralization index (LI) analyses revealed a nominally significant association between insight propensity and leftward FA asymmetry in the dorsal composite (β_std = 0.323, p = 0.036), however this effect did not survive FDR correction ( q = 0.216).

The inverse variance weighted (IVW) analysis indicated a nominally significant association between genetically predicted depressed affect and DKD (OR: 2.452; 95% CI: 1.061–5.671; p = 0.036), while the weighted median method also yielded a statistically significant estimate (OR: 3.709; 95% CI: 1.146–12.003; p = 0.029).

For phylum Euryarchaeota (id.55), weak but nominally significant associations with dysmenorrhea were observed in the IVW analysis (β = −0.409; 95% CI: −0.793∼−0.025; P = 0.036), with directionally consistent estimates across IVW, MR-Egger, and Weighted Median.

Furthermore, a positive correlation between the 5-year mean IGF-1 SDS and the duration of GHRT was nominally significant (r = 0.421, p = 0.036).

A nominally significant association with bleeding risk persisted only for rosuvastatin (OR = 2.189; 95% CI: 1.039–4.612; p = 0.037), but this finding should be interpreted with caution and regarded as exploratory. 3.4.

Similarly, the conditional multivariable MR association of IL-6 on AN is only nominally significant (OR = 0.96, [95% CI = 0.93–0.99], P = 0.037).

A nominally significant interaction effect was observed in patients with hypertension ( P = 0.037) and in those with wide QRS ( P = 0.003) ( Table 6 ).

An initial synthesis of the volume data from the left and right habenula using a paired samples t ‐test also supported this point: no significant interhemispheric differences for either the healthy samples ( t (24) = 1.443, p = .162, Cohen d = 0.289), or the patients with SCZ ( t (4) = −0.550, p = .612, d = −0.246); there appeared to be a nominally significant difference in MDD subgroup ( t (10) = 2.403, p = .037, d = 0.725), but it did not survive correction of multiple testing.

In contrast, the probabilities of transitioning from other PL states to PL state 3 were all increased, with the transition from PL state 4 to PL state 3 also showing a nominally significant difference (uncorrected p = 0.0376, Cohen’s d = 0.5201).

Longitudinal stratification of the CIPN phenotypes to examine links for neuropathy, identified nominally significant protective associations with the GSTM* null allele ( p -value = 0.038, OR = 0.55) and the presence of pain at month 2 of treatment, as well as a risk factor for pain related month 2 of treatment for individuals with the GSTT1* null allele ( p -value = 0.030, OR = 1.64).

MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) test identified 5 outliers for IBD, 1 for RA and 2 outliers for vitiligo ( Table S10 ), whereas exclusion resulted in a nominally significant association for vitiligo (OR, 95% CI: 0.827, 0.691–0.989), p -value = 0.038; Figure 4 a).

When tested individually, both di- and tetranucleotides showed at least nominally significant signals (two-sided z -proportion test P = 0.038 and P = 3.7 × 10 –38 , respectively), but trinucleotides did not ( P = 0.95).

Additional sensitivity analyses showed that the cML-MA-BIC-DP method (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.53–0.69, p = 3.85 × 10 −11 ) yielded a similar result to IVW and weighted median methods ( Table 5 ), while the association from MR-APSS method was nominally significant (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05–0.92, p = 0.038) ( Table 5 ; Supplementary Figure S2 ).

0.25), corresponding to a nominally significant association (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.05–2.67; p = 0.039).

The difference in lymph node reduction between groups had nominally significant association in this exploratory analysis (p = 0.039, independent-samples t -test), with a moderate-to-large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.71) ( Figure 2 ).

At a threshold of FIS ≥0.7, SERPING1 variant carriers had a nominally significant increased risk of NCEIS (HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.06-10.19; P = .039) and PAD (HR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.29-7.45; P = .011), with the association for PAD remaining significant after Bonferroni correction ( Figure 2 C; supplemental Table 4 ).

For the OR, FA showed a nominally significant negative association at the uncorrected level (β = − 0.187, t (110) = −2.084, p =.039), but this did not survive FDR correction (FDR adjusted q = 0.118).

Assessment for significance of an SOD2 (# Ala16 alleles)-by-deployment interaction term (adjusted for both components of the interaction) to evaluate for effect modification by deployment was nominally significant, p = 0.039.

We further note that rs73404538 is nominally significant in the Sierra Leone susceptibility GWAS ( P = 0.039, OR = 0.71) and in a meta-analysis of the Nigeria and Sierra Leone susceptibility GWASs ( P = 0.021) with a concordant direction of effect (Extended Data Table 4 ).

Nominally significant positive associations were observed between the weighted PGS and maternal alcohol consumption at week 30 (ST17; beta = 0.067, se = 0.032, p = 0.039).

Progression-free survival (PFS) was also significant ( p = 6.730 × 10 −3 ; q = 0.0143), disease-specific survival (DSS) was nominally significant but borderline after FDR correction ( p = 0.0399; q = 0.0532), and disease-free survival (DFS) was not significant ( p = 0.0903; q = 0.0903) ( Figure 4 , Table S3 ).