“nominally significant”

In a previous meta-analysis, the pooled OR derived from nine case–control studies is nominally significant (random-effects pooled OR = 1.07, P = 0.04), while the pooled OR derived from five family-based studies increases notably to an OR of 1.54 (P = 0.000019).

At the subcortical level, a nominally significant uncorrected effect was observed for HC versus ET in the left thalamus ( p = 0.04, uncorrected, t = −2.07), with sub-threshold trend-level uncorrected effects in HC versus LTG ( p = 0.12, uncorrected, t = −1.58) and HC versus HTG ( p = 0.06, uncorrected, t = −1.91).

Among the more common ( n ≥ 5) movement disorders, only a higher proportion of dyskinesia in antipsychotic‐naïve individuals was nominally significant (antipsychotic‐naïve vs. ever‐exposed, 4/9 (44%) vs. 2/22 (9%), p = 0.04) (Table 4 ).

That being said, there was a nominally significant association (OR = 1.26, p -value = 0.04) of the PRS-CRP constructed using a limited number of genome-wide significant SNPs, mimicking the one used by Huang et al. 8 , with moderate-to-severe OSA with EDS, compared with no OSA.

SIRT1 rs3758391 T allele showed nominally significant associations with depressive disorders (OR = 1.19, 95% CI of 1.01 to 1.40, p = 0.040, see Table 3 ), metabolic syndrome (OR = 0.88, 95% CI of 0.80 to 0.97, p = 0.01, see Table 3 ), insulin resistance index (beta = -0.26, 95% CI of -0.48 to -0.04, p = 0.019, empirical p = 0.02, see Table 3 ) and blood glucose (beta = -0.05, CI of -0.09 to -0.002, p = 0.04, empirical p = 0.04, Table 3 ).

We find that the two depressive symptoms lead-SNPs have the predicted sign for subjective well-being, and one is nominally significant ( p = 0.04).

CAV1, PDPN, and ZFPM2 also demonstrated nominally significant differences across specific age group comparisons (p ≤ 0.040), though their patterns were comparatively less consistent.

However, logistic regression under the co-dominant model revealed a nominally significant association for the AG genotype (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.01–7.5, p = 0.04; AIC = 144.0, BIC = 158.1), while no significant association was observed under the dominant model (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 0.95–5.6, p = 0.06).

After Benjamini–Hochberg correction across the 23 panel-level Spearman tests, 10 of 11 nominally significant correlations were retained at q < 0.05; BNIP3 (raw p = 0.040, q ≈ 0.082) was the gene that fell below the BH threshold ( Table S1 ).

In the first of these studies, the benefit of the hypnotic for depression was not significant at week 4 after the investigators removed the rating scale items related to insomnia, whereas the week 8 benefit was nominally significant only at the P=0.04 level not correcting for multiple comparisons.

A post hoc analysis checking for sex interactions across the factors revealed a nominally significant interaction with sex for cardiometabolic MR1 only (GHQ-12 beta = −0.075, p = 0.040, SF12-MCS beta = −0.075, p = 0.042, reference category female).

In the sensitivity analysis accounting for medication use, those who switched medications (mixed use) had 1.81 greater odds of experiencing high negative symptoms compared to those with continued AAP use; however, this was nominally significant ( p = 0.04).

The direction of effect was consistent with that in the other studies but was only nominally significant in SDRNT1BIO ( P = 0.04) and not significant in DCCT ( P = 0.14) and WESDR ( P = 0.08).

The m.16390G>A variant was also found to be more common in type 2 diabetes cases than in controls in a Tunisian study population, but the nominally significant association (p=0.04) did not survive multivariate regression analysis [ 47 ].

After adjustment for clinical variables, and correction for multiple comparisons the association between the VEGFA genotype and Gensini score remained only nominally significant ( p = 0.04, FDR = 0.19) under the dominant genetic model in patients without previous MI.

Results: Among the examined variants, only GDF5 rs143384 showed a nominally significant association with DDH ( p = 0.040), with the A allele more common in affected individuals.

PFDEA, PFNA and PFUA concentrations were found to be nominally significantly associated with a higher number of gestational weeks at delivery (PFDEA: β 0.36, 95% CI 0.03–0.69, p = 0.04; PFNA: β 0.34, 95%CI 0.01–0.66, p = 0.04; PFUA: β 0.34, 95% CI 0.05–0.63, p = 0.04) but were not robust to multiple testing correction ( Table 4 ).

The ABC showed a nominally significant reduction in the hyperactivity subscale, but only at week 2 ( p = 0.04) and lethargy at week 4 ( p = 0.04), although large effect sizes were again seen in the majority of the ABC subscales at some time points ( Table 4 ).

In the GAMs analysis, two variables showed nominally significant effects: baseline PNS index ( P = 0.040, b splin e 1 = − 0.942 ) and gender ( P = 0.028, coefficient = − 0.1332 ), with partial effects illustrated in Figure 5 and full results reported in the Supplementary Materials ( Supplementary data online , Table S5 , Supplementary data online , Figure S10 ).

8 In the multivariable Cox model reported by Ruhwedel et al., the overall effect of primary tumor location was not statistically significant ( p = .11), but there was a nominally significant association for shorter OS in patients with pancreatic versus gastrointestinal NETs during [ 177 Lu]Lu‐edotreotide therapy ( p = .04). 33 However, there are prognostic differences between NETs of different origin, depending on the aggressiveness of disease. 44 , 45 Overall, our findin

We found a significant association between the genetic variation at DHX32 (rs12356233, corrected P =0.019) and a nominally significant association between RGS12 and the response to adalimumab (rs4690093, uncorrected P =0.040).

However, the M1 protein VGF was only nominally significant at classifying AD in Caucasian AUC = 0.6030 ( p = 0.0406, CI = 0.4887–0.7173), yet highly significant in African Americans AUC = 0.7593 ( p = 5.03e-06, CI = 0.6634–0.8552).

A nominally significant negative association was observed between baseline EPA levels and treatment effect size (slope = −1.05, p = 0.0406; Figure 5 ).

For the post-2020 slope-change term (β 3 ), the arithmetic mean result remained significant after Bonferroni correction (adjusted p = 0.0165), whereas the harmonic mean result, although nominally significant in the unadjusted analysis (raw p = 0.0409), no longer met the corrected significance threshold (Bonferroni-adjusted p = 0.1227; BH-adjusted p = 0.0614).

On analyzing myocardial infarction risk, we detected a nominally significant (P = 0.041) association in type-2 diabetic subjects (HR: 1.86; 95% CI:1.03-3.37 for AA versus G-carriers), although this association did not remain statistically significant following correction for multiple comparisons.