“nominally significant”

While differences in Pause Duration ( t = −2.20, p = 0.029), Completeness (U = 2046, p = 0.030) and Spatial layout (U = 1904, p = 0.010) in Chinese character writing were nominally significant at the p < 0.05 level, they did not survive the multiple-testing correction. 3.3.

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.

We found 92 (53 increased and 39 decreased) nominally significant DEGs of KRAS mut with a p -value < 0.05, which FREM1 , ERMP1 (up-regulated), and CCL8 (down-regulated) were significant after multiple test corrections (FDR < 0.05).

IL‐1b and IL‐4 showed a trend toward being higher in serum in the high IFN patients as compared with the low IFN SLE patients (nominally significant P < 0.05 for both).

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.

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).

So it should be kept in mind that each individual p value has a one-in-twenty chance of being nominally significant (p < 0.05) purely from random fluctuations.

Although 75 proteins showed nominally significant abundance differences ( p ≤ 0.05), all corresponding q‐values were 0.99, indicating no statistically robust differences in abundance between PEA and VC at 36 h.

We note that although APOE has previously been identified as a AD TWAS gene in microglia 83 , we did not highlight it in our scTWAS results because it did not pass Stage 1 screening, despite nominally significant Stage 2 associations in proliferate, surveilling, and reacting microglia (nominal p -values < 0.05).

Of these, 12 were nominally significant at P < 0.05 and none were nominally significant at P < 0.01 (Table 3 ).

Furthermore, these variants exhibited directionally concordant and nominally significant associations ( p < 0.05) with glycated hemoglobin levels in the UK Biobank ( n = 344,182) [ 34 ].

Although not all the GO annotations listed in the downregulated gene category passed multiple test correction, they were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) and functionally linked.

Differential methylation analysis identified 6095 nominally significant differentially methylated CpG sites (DMCs; p < 0.05, log fold-change > 0.1), associated with 2935 unique genes.

Of those, 38,776 (95%) showed the same direction of effect, 33,128 (81%) also had a nominally significant p value ( p < 0.05), and 25,544 (63%) had an FDR-adjusted p < 0.05 in the BLUEPRINT data (Fig. 1b , Supplementary Data 1 ).

Among nominally significant ( P < 0.05) maternal genes, there was enrichment of several biological pathways, including metabolic processes, secretion, and intracellular transport, that varied across pregnancy.

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.

There were 202 correlations (out of 1425 possible, 14.2%) that were nominally significant, p < 0.05 before correcting for multiple hypotheses testing.

The association was deemed to be statistically robust to pleiotropy when estimates were directionally consistent and nominally significant (P <0.05) across all methods.

If the result of the MR analysis was nominally significant ( P < 0.05), we inferred that there might be a causal relationship between the gut microbiota and the outcome 26 .

A FDR-adjusted P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant; unadjusted P value < 0.05 was considered nominally significant and unadjusted P value = 0.05 was considered borderline significant.

Nominally significant results ( p < 0.05, FDR ≥ 0.05) were described as “suggestive associations”. 2.5.

We also annotated whether the association reported in each meta-analytic estimate was nominally significant at a P < 0.05 level as well as at a P < 0.005 level.

However, E2F2 , ZC3HC1 , RMI1 , JAK2 , EXOC3L1 , and CSF2RB are nominally significant ( P < 0.05), also in the small non-European sample, when adjusting for lead GWAS hits ( Table 3 ).

All nominally significant associations (P<0.05) are listed.

We observed nominally significant ( P < 0.05) miRNA–target gene enrichment signal in three traits for five GWASs; height, RA and type 2 diabetes (Figure 2A ), which was consistent and robust with our previous results despite of the update on miRNA–target gene prediction algorithms ( 13 ).