“nominally significant”

C3 showed a nominally significant risk association under the weighted median model (OR = 1.651, P = .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.

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

Specifically, adolescent MDD patients in the replication cohort exhibited nominally significant reductions in λ ( t = −2.14, P = 0.0342), L p ( t = −2.35, P = 0.0203), and E local ( t = −2.01, P = 0.0467).

Nominally significant protective associations were also observed for higher eosinophil (OR = 0.9883, 95% CI = 0.9777–0.9991, P = .0344, FDR = 0.1148) and lymphocyte counts (OR = 0.9858; 95% CI = 0.9745–0.9972, P = .0148, FDR = 0.0739).

Whilst the HTT region itself did not show nominal enrichment in either the entorhinal cortex or cerebellum, in the entorhinal cortex nominally significant enrichment was observed at GRK4 (chr4:2930232–3052474, 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 ).

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 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.

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).

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).

The three nominally significant CpG sites exceeding the 5% biological relevance threshold cg03543593 in TNXB ( p = 0.035), cg09451613 in TACC2 ( p = 0.009), and cg09413492 in MUC12 ( p = 0.047) remained nominally significant across the models.

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).

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).

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).

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 ).

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 ).

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.

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 the forest plot summary ( Figure 4 G), the IVW estimator yielded a nominally significant association ( p = 0.0361), with an OR of 0.9961 (95% CI: 0.9925–0.9997).

The linear effect for Existence was nominally significant, b = −0.107, p = .037, but was not significant after FDR correction, p FDR = .130.

Perhaps in line with this idea, we did see a nominally significant benefit of vitamin D on biological age ( p = 0.037) before correcting for multiple testing.

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).