“nominally significant”

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).

PERMANOVA analyses identified nominally significant effects of Age within the ONT dataset at the phylum (R2 = 0.204, p = 0.038), family (R2 = 0.154, p = 0.020), and genus (R2 = 0.139, p = 0.029) levels, whereas no nominally significant effects were detected in the Illumina dataset (Supplementary Table S2).

Although the analysis of the original four-category scale produced a nominally significant result (χ 2 = 8.45; p = 0.038), more than one-third of cells (37.5%) had expected frequencies below 5.

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 ).

Among diabetic patients, a nominally significant difference in unadjusted event rates was observed (12% vs. 35%, p = 0.038), though this exploratory subgroup analysis requires cautious interpretation given the small sample and absence of adjustment for confounders. 4.1.

Nevertheless, we note that a nominally significant effect of the additive model ( p = 0.039) was also found that might survive multiple comparison testing in larger samples.

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 ).

There was a nominally significant association between AAA and HLA-DQA1 locus in the Belgian population (empirical p = 0.039; asymptotic p = 0.049; p = 0.147 after Sidak correction for multiple testing).

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.

Subgroup analysis showed that patients with cN2‐3 had a significant survival benefit with NAC‐DCF (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34–0.76) in the IPW analysis, whereas no clear association was observed in those with cN0–1 (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62–1.34), with a nominally significant interaction by clinical N stage ( p = 0.039).

Left VAN showed a nominally significant difference ( p = 0.039) that did not survive FDR correction (p~FDR~ = 0.110) and is therefore not considered a statistically significant finding.

For the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale, no significant group × time interaction effects were observed at any assessment point except T2, where a nominally significant group × time effect was found ( b = -1.766, t = -2.066, p = 0.039); however, this result did not remain significant after FDR correction.

Reverse MR suggested nominally significant associations: higher genetically predicted heel BMD was associated with lower POI risk ( OR = 0.792, 95% CI : 0.635–0.988, P = 0.039), while genetic susceptibility to wrist fracture ( OR = 1.44, 95% CI : 1.038–1.986, P =0.025) and pelvic fracture ( OR =1.177, 95% CI :1.056–1.312, P =0.003) were associated with increased POI risk.

Prior to FDR correction, nominally significant group effects were observed at S = 0.35 (F(2,46) = 3.49, uncorrected p = 0.039, η2p = 0.093), S = 0.40 (F(2,46) = 2.86, p = 0.067, η2p = 0.081), S = 0.45 (F(2,46) = 3.29, p = 0.046, η2p = 0.088), and S = 0.50 (F(2,46) = 6.35, p = 0.004, η2p = 0.125).

69 In the phase 3 CUPID B trial that investigated patients with CSU who were refractory to 3 months of omalizumab therapy, a nominally significant reduction in UAS7 from baseline compared with placebo (−14.4 vs −8.5; P =0.0390) was observed at week 24.

Linear regression analysis using age, sex and intracranial volume as a priori predictors revealed that MAPT diplotype was a predictor of left insula and right cerebellar Crus II lobar volumes at a nominally significant level ( p = 0.039 and p = 0.033, respectively), with the H1 haplotype predicting lower grey matter volumes.

For those who identified as Southeast or South (SE/S) Asian, there was a nominally significant interaction ( p = 0.039; β = 0.358) with religious attendance ( Fig. 3 ).

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).

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 ).

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).

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