“nominally significant”

1 C); with a nominally significant increase in the non-delirious group (median increase of 11.4%, 95% CI: 0.0%–23.5%, p = 0.0491).

There was a nominally significant association between the s allele of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism and TEM (odds ratio, 1.434; 95% confidence interval, 1.001–2.055; P = 0.0493; I 2 = 52%).

In uncorrected pairwise comparisons, only the proportion of activated NK cells showed a nominally significant difference between the IDD and control groups (raw P = 0.04949).

Additionally, there was a nonsignificant trend towards multiple repeat mutations (p = 0.5127), as well as, a nominally significant trend towards deletion mutations (p = 0.0495) (Table 6 ).

A nominally significant association with BPD was found for rs1006737 in CACNA1C ( P =0.0498).

Finally, we found significant differences in the frequencies of TAGA ( P = 0.005, OR = 3.187, 95% CI 1.376–7.382) containing rs4570625-rs11178997-rs1386494-rs7305115 between ODD and control groups (Tables 7 , 8 ). However, the further analysis by Haploview revealed the nominally significant finding for rs1386494 ( χ 2 = 3.846, P = 0.0499), and only one haplotypes (TAGA, χ 2 = 4.366, P = 0.0367) remained significant.

All showed a concordant effect direction between the GWAS prospective and GWAS retrospective (p=0·0005, binomial sign test), with six loci nominally significant (GWAS prospective p<0·050) and one significant after Bonferroni correction for the 12 loci (rs3851357, GWAS prospective p=0·0035).

Smoothed methylation values over nominally significant ( p < 0.05) DMRs from each comparison were obtained using the “getMeth” function in the bsseq R package v1.36.0.

Accordingly, 12 nominally significant associations from the abundance-based models and 26 from the presence-based models were identified (p<0.05, figure 5A and online supplemental table S14 ).

To verify the reliability of these polygenic associations, we repeated the analyses using PRS comprising only the 108 sentinel genome-wide significant schizophrenia variants 15 , based on the assumption that the effect size estimates of genome-wide significant variants should be less affected by population structure than non-significant variants; 77 of the 104 associated traits were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) based on the PRS comprising only genome-wide significant variants.

Although the proteomic profiles of the 21 cyclophosphamide responders versus 14 non-responders overlapped by PCA ( Supplemental Data S3 ; Document S1 : Data S1 B, Figure S2 ; Tables S4 and S5 ), several immune-related proteins (e.g., IGHE, KIT, CD80, and IL-34) showed nominally significant differences ( p < 0.05), none of which remained significant after FDR correction.

In total, 15,803 transcripts, including both coding and non-coding transcripts were measured with sufficient coverage in both samples, of which 503 were found to have nominally significant differential expression (p<0.05), which after correction for multiple hypothesis a total of 35 were considered significantly expressed (p<0.05, Benjamini-Hochberg) ( Sup.

Because we detected a nominally significant difference (p = 0.05) in the amount of fruit consumed by the members of Mica's group (7.9%, 95% CI: 0.0–8.3%) and the members of Viola's group (2.2%, 95% CI: 1.0–7.3%) during the sampling period, we also compared our results to a published data set of seasonal differences in gut microbiome composition in humans ( Davenport et al., 2014 ).

For CD4 + T cells, baseline β7 integrin expression had a nominally significant (unadjusted p < 0.05) effect on the following genes: ITGA4, GATA3, GZMA, BATF, HIFA, ICOS and IRF4, although none of these genes had an FDR below 0.1.

Differences between groups were nominally significant (nominal P < 0.05) if the 95% confidence interval [CI] of the group difference did not include the null value (0 for mean differences and 1 for odds ratios), but for the sake of convenience, if the nominal P ‐value in the secondary analysis is less than 0.05, it is described as significant, and if it is 0.05 or more, it is described as non‐significant.

Specifically, we identified a total of 169 nominally significant enriched terms ( p -value < 0.05 and FDR < 0.2), which represent a medium-confidence set, including a subset of 37 high-confidence terms that passed multiple test correction with an FDR of <0.05 ( Figure 3 ).

DHX58 and SWAP70 showed protein‐level associations with CAD (FDR <0.05) and colocalization probabilities between 0.5 and 0.7, with nominally significant associations ( P <0.05, unadjusted) at the methylation and expression levels.

Of the 1,609 SNPs, 117 showed nominally significant interaction effects (1-df p < 0.05), and these were mostly observed in African ancestry samples or trans-ancestry meta-analyses ( Table S5 ).

Fourteen MGSs were nominally significant for the broad spectrum (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, unadjusted p < 0.05).

First, exposure‐outcome associations that were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) on primary analysis with IVW MR were identified.

Multivariable modelling and the relations between predictor variables All predictor variables having shown nominally significant (p < 0.05) effects on hand preference in univariable testing (i.e. all but maternal smoking) were then included in the multivariable analysis, using general linear modelling (Methods), with hand preference as the dependent variable.

Results: In primary data, nominally significant ( P < 0.05) differential methylation between groups was observed for over 100 CpG sites, including genes involved in immunomodulation of the NF-kappaB inflammation pathway, endocannabinoid signaling, and inflammatory mediator regulation of TRP channels.

Variable Selection Based on linear mixed models including the factors of time, age at enrollment, sex, and stimulus version, 23 speech variables from the picture description task showed nominally significant ( P < 0.05) effects of time at the group level.

Testing 20 candidate SNPs for which we had data available, we find directionally consistent, nominally significant associations for six loci (p < 0.05, one-sided test), of which three have sex-specific effects.

In a per-protein analysis, replacing values below the limit of detection with protein specific LOD-values, five proteins (CSF-1, NTRK3, ICOSLG, SCF and PECAM-1) were found to have nominally significant differences between the two time-points (p < 0.05, Wilcox test).