Barely Significant
← all phrases

nominally significant

4,085 sentences · 4,085 papers · 9,414 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.08

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

nominally significantp = 0.0320.6× alphagold
The association with previous VTE for one SD increase in CFHR5 level in VEBIOS Coagulation was still nominally significant when adjusting for C3 levels (OR 1.36 [CI 1.03-1.82], p = 0.032), although weaker compared to adjusting only for age and sex (OR 1.55 [CI 1.2-2.01], p = 8.85E-04, Table 3 and Supplementary data 1 [Tab_8] ).
nominally significantP = 0.0320.6× alphagold
Interestingly, one suggestive signal for tau‐PET on Chr7 ( CRYGN,RHEB /rs12538040, MAF = 0.196, P = 3.80E‐07, β = −0.84) was also nominally significant with the same direction for p‐tau217 ( P = 0.032, β = −0.21). 3.4 Mult‐trait GWAS Multi‐trait GWAS was performed on a subset of 76 participants from ABC‐DS with all four tau biomarker measurements available, aiming to identify pleiotropic loci that simultaneously contribute to all tau biomarkers.
nominally significantp = 0.0330.7× alphagold
Analysis of the allelic distribution among patients according to their asthma severity also indicated nominally significant associations of allele A of IL-4Rα A1199>C, allele T of IL-4Rα T1570>C and allele A of TNFα TNFα C-863>A with asthma severity (p = 0.033, p = 0.018 and p = 0.047, respectively).
nominally significantp = 0.0330.7× alphagold
Comparing MDD-SI and MDD-nSI, nominally significant group × time interactions were observed for the λ ( F = 4.530, p = 0.033; β = 0.725, 95% CI: 0.049 to 1.400), and nodal efficiency exhibited a nominally significant group × time interaction in the right posterior cingulate gyrus ( F = 3.958, p = 0.046; β = -0.783, 95% CI: -1.565 to -0.003).
nominally significantp = 0.0340.7× alphagold
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 significantp = 0.0340.7× alphagold
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).