“nominally significant”

Moreover, we found nominally significant effects (uncorrected) of PAE for FA in the ICP-R (p = 0.033) and SS-L (p = 0.021).

Hydration interactions on the cheeks were nominally significant before multiplicity (right cheek β interaction = 3.58, p = 0.034, q = 0.103; left cheek β _interaction = 2.81, p = 0.017, q = 0.077) but did not meet the FDR threshold, which, given the modest sample and group imbalance (38 vs. 15), raises the possibility of both Type I (false positives) and Type II (false negatives).

The sole exception was Bacillus subtilis strain 3610, for which the interaction between time post-infection and maternal condition was weakly nominally significant ( S2 Table ; p = 0.034).

In this study, although a nominally significant difference was observed in COVES between groups in the univariate analysis ( p = 0.034), this finding was not robust after false discovery rate correction (FDR-corrected, p = 0.129), indicating that the observed association may be marginal and should be interpreted with caution.

Nominally significant association was found between SPON1 and Ecc_global ( P = 0.034).

The set of 37 monogenic obesity genes showed a weaker but also nominally significant enrichment (2.05-fold enrichment, P = 0.034).

A nominally significant (p=0.034) improvement was observed in global alpha AEC-c.

SLE status was significantly associated with reduced XCI-skew in 40–49 years (p=9.4×10 −4 ) and 50–59 years (p=9.8×10 −4 ), after Bonferroni correction (alpha=0.0125), and nominally significant in the over 60 years group (p=0.034; online supplemental figure S1 ).

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.

In the prelimbic cortex, there was a nominally significant difference in Gdap1 DNAm ( F (1,29) = 4.92, p = 0.035, mean ± SD DNAm AUD = 4.07% ± 0.41%, mean ± SD DNAm Ctrl = 3.66% ± 0.59%, Figure 6 E).

At 1000 kHz, aged animals exhibited nominally significantly increased resistance (217.5 ± 20.5 versus 151.6 ± 12.9 ohms; p = 0.035, not FDR significant), while phase angle and reactance did not change as compared to young animals (Fig. 3 J–L).

Among the 14 items assessed, only the frequency of consuming Mediterranean-style sautéed dishes showed a nominally significant difference between the sexes ( p = 0.035).

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 ).

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).

PLEKHA1 showed a nominally significant MCI versus CN difference (T = 2.11, P = 0.036, FDR P = 0.225), and TBK1 did not reach significance ( Supplementary Table S28 ).

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).

In contrast, the TimePeriod × Sex interaction was not consistent: it was not significant for PC1–PC5 or PC1–PC8 but became only nominally significant when additional low‐variance PCs were included (PC1–PC10 and PC1–PC12; p = 0.036 and 0.044) (Table S9 ).

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).

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.

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).

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 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.

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.