“nominally significant”

We then restricted these genes to those which were also at least nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in the individual GWAS for schizophrenia and SUD but did not survive multiple-testing correction for either of the respective univariable GWAS (schizophrenia + AD = 16, schizophrenia + CUD = 15, schizophrenia + ND = 5, schizophrenia + OD = 13, Supplementary Tables 6 – 9 ).

In total, 12 proteins were found to be associated with CAD at the nominally significant level ( p value < 0.05 and p − HEIDI > 0.05), in which PGD (OR = 1.296, 95% CI = 1.005–1.67, p = 0.046), IL1RN (OR = 1.123, 95% CI = 1.007–1.254, p = 0.038), ANGPT1 (OR = 1.268, 95% CI = 1.063–1.512, p = 0.008), F2 (OR = 1.243, 95% CI = 1.047–1.476, p = 0.013), and NAGLU (OR = 1.043, 95% CI = 1.005

However, 9 of the 21 CDR-associated and 1 of the 3 CERAD-associated DE circRNAs were nominally significant in GSE104704 ( P value ≤ 0.05).

For all pairwise comparisons, we tested for significant differences between groups using chi-square tests and we report test statistics and p -values for all nominally significant ( p < 0.05) differences in the Results.

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.

We found 99.3% (5442/5478) of the FDR significant associations also had a nominally significant ( p ≤ 0.05) association in the Spearman rank test (Fig.

When sex, smoking, hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia were adjusted for, the haplotype effect remained nominally significant ( P = 0.05) in young onset CAD cases, more so ( P = 0.002) when hypercholesterolaemia was excluded.

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

Three sites (hand, head, shoulder) showed nominally significant associations ( p < 0.05) between baseline PA patterns and subsequent pain outcomes (Supplementary Tables 17 – 23 ).

Evidence of excess significance bias—We applied the excess statistical significance test, which evaluates whether the observed (O) number of studies with nominally significant results (“positive” studies, P < 0.05) is larger than their expected (E) number ( 17 ).

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.

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).

In addition, there was substantial enrichment of nominally significant associations ( p <0.05) among disease SNPs.

Of the remaining eight risk SNPs without significant signals, they found nine genes among four SNPs that were at least nominally significant ( P <0.05).

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 ).

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.

The analysis, focusing on nominally significant hits ( p < 0.05, >1.5-liner fold change) and the Reactome and KEGG pathway databases [via WebGestalt ( Subramanian et al., 2005 ; Liao et al., 2019 )], failed to detect FDR significant enrichment.

Genetic correlation with health-related traits Bivariate LDSR showed nominally significant ( P < 0.05) genetic correlations (rG) between meta-analyzed MDD and 28 of the 200 health-related traits assessed.

Of these, 10 had significantly different effect sizes ( p -value < 7.8 × 10 −4 , Bonferroni correction for 64 variants) and 22 were nominally significant ( p -value < 0.05).

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.

The Radial plot method was used to select eligible resting heart-rate associated genetic variants for fitness by removing heterogeneous outliers for the genetic variants, of which 149 were also nominally significant in the fitness GWAS ( p < 0.05) [ 28 ].

Nominally significant ( P < 0.05) Pearson correlations between the repeated measurements (R repeat ) in 292 selected individuals were found for 723,029 bins (lsBINs; 6.3% of the initial 11,524,145 bins).

Even among nominally significant DEGs (nDEGs p < 0.05; cortex n = 1567; striatum n = 906; cerebellum n = 487), there was limited overlap, with significant similarities being seen only among downregulated genes (Fig. 2 c and Supplementary Table 4), indicating that the effects of Mbd5 reduction are largely different across these three brain regions.

To ensure replication, it was furthermore a criterion that each metabolite was nominally significant ( P < 0.05) in both cohorts.

For an additional 12 traits, we found nominally significant associations ( P < 0.05) with genetically determined LTL, with most of these traits showing significant and concordant associations with usual LTL (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 10 ).