“nominally significant”

Evidence of Excess Significance Bias An excess significance test was conducted to investigate whether the observed number of studies (O) with nominally significant results ( p < 0.05, “positive” results) was larger than the expected number of significant results (E) ( Ioannidis and Trikalinos, 2007 ).

Gene-based analysis revealed 76 nominally significant ( p ≤ 0.050) longevity-associated genes, and we call these 76 genes the “longevity-associated gene set” (Tables S3 and S4 ).

Also, the association between sentinel variants in the FoxP1 gene and diagnosis of IPF was nominally significant ( p < 0.05) rather than genome-wide significant.

We used a nominally significant threshold of P < .05 to determine statistical significance.

Prior to RF model training, a feature selection was performed, and only species that showed nominally significant differential abundance in t ‐test and/or LinDA analysis ( p < 0.05) were used as features for training.

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.

Regarding MCSA, significant positive correlations were observed for the BB-MCSA (r = 0.192, P = 0.034) and BR-MCSA (r = 0.211, P = 0.02), both of which were nominally significant (as 0.01 < P < 0.05).

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.

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.

According to the brain tissues filter, the analysis showed a nominally significant association ( P < 0.05) with DRD4 due to a downregulation of gene expression in a specific brain area, which is the Putamen region included in Basal Ganglia ( Z -score = −3.02, P = 0.00252).

For this, we selected the nominally significant hypo- or hypermethylated CpGs (uncorrected P < 0.05) in the discovery step and conducted the overlap step in the pipeline.

Results At weeks 12 and 24, patients treated with either upadacitinib dose reported statistically and nominally significant improvements from baseline across all PROs versus placebo ( p ≤ 0.05), except the WPAI absenteeism domain, which were maintained or further improved to week 56.

Two variants were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) with a consistent direction of effect for at least one decline phenotype (Table 3 ).

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 ).

We then used polyTest to assess cell-type-specific enrichment of phenotypes and diseases that showed at least nominally significant enrichment ( P < 0.05) in mouse forebrain d-TACs from the previous analysis.

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

None of the individual SNPs in the CCT-GRS were associated with OAG after correction for multiple testing, however 10 SNPs were nominally significant ( P < 0.05 uncorrected for multiple testing; Supplementary Table S5 ).

Meta-analyses were deemed free from biases and classified as convincing (Class I) if they satisfied the following criteria: p value <10 − 6 in random-effects meta-analysis; inclusion of more than 1000 participants; low or moderate between-study heterogeneity (I2 <50%); 95% PI excluding the null value; no evidence of small-study effects or excess significance bias; and the largest study showing a nominally significant result (p<0.05).

We considered a replication significant if the test was nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in both replication datasets, and the P -value for the pooled estimate was significant after correcting for the multiple tests.

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.

A total of 22 SNPs showed nominally significant association ( p <0.05) with at least one lipid trait in at least one ethnic group, although not always with the same lipid traits reported as genome-wide significant in the original GWAS.

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.

Nominally significant associations (directionality and strength shown by beta estimates) are bolded (p < 0.05) and significant associations after correcting for testing 6 modules and 22 traits (FDR) are bolded and in red.

The associations between CHCHD6 GREX and heart failure were nominally significant in two of the three tissues tested in individuals of European ancestry and one of the three tissues tested in individuals of African ancestry ( P < 0.05).

While none of the GO terms from the trio univariate GSEA met the FDR significance threshold, nominally significant (p < 0.05) pathways suggest some overlap with Cohort 1 results, including neuron recognition , cerebral cortex cell migration and axonal fasciculation and GO terms related to.