“nominally significant”

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.

If the proportion of nominally significant results ( P < 0.05, same direction of effect as the overall median outcome for the given signature) when the biopsy was excluded was <80% of the proportion of nominally significant results when the biopsy was included, we considered any overall finding of differential gene set expression as nonrobust.

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

Nominally significant enrichments ( p < 0.05) are provided and FDR significant ( q < 0.05) results are highlighted.

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.

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 .

Correlations were considered nominally significant at P < 0.05 and significant after correction if q < 0.05.

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

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 ).

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.

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.

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).

While the association was still nominally significant ( p < 0.05), it was no longer significant with the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure.

Module genes as candidates for schizophrenia A substantial proportion of the 205 module genes had nominally significant P values (defined as P <0.05 without multiple testing correction) in the corresponding GWAS dataset: 139 module genes (67.80%) had P GAIN <0.05, and 125 module genes (60.98%) had P ISC <0.05.

In contrast, the mean intensity of PC was inversely associated with TNFR2 and VCAM-1, whereas Cer(d) was positively associated with fibrinogen, and PE(O) was negatively associated with TNFR2; however, these correlations were only nominally significant ( P < 0.05).

Nominally significant P‐ values ( P < 0.05) from differential abundance were used as threshold for input lists for pathway discovery tools.

Studies) below Metabolome Wide Significance Level (MWASL) threshold (p = 2.4 * 10E–9 to 1.1 * 10E–5) with Ln[CACs + 1] mannose, alanine and acetaminophen-glucuronide strongly associated yet glutamate and histidine had strong inverse associations besides other significant metabolites also remained nominally significant (p < 0.05) but by 50% weaker association; furthermore, lipoprotein subcategories of total plasma cholesterol, total plasma apolipoprotein B and apolipoprotein B within total plasma LDL significantly associated with Ln[CACs + 1] in model-3 (further adjusted for model-1 + nonlipid CVD risk factors of SBP, DM, Smoking status, and use of medication for hypercholesterolemia, BP or DM).”.

Each of the independent variables in the regression models was nominally significant, with p < 0.05.

In addition, 26 dSVs and 51 vSVs showed nominally significant heritability ( P < 0.05), with an average h 2 of 0.28 and 0.41, respectively (Supplementary Tables 4 and 5 ).

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.

Associations in the linear regression models are presented as nominally significant ( P < 0.05).

Sex had no significant effect on the KDEF ( p > 0.05), but we found nominally significant sex differences on the FET ( p < 0.05) and a non-significant trend on the RMET ( p = 0.06), such that males performed marginally worse than females.

To determine if any annotations were enriched in both mouse and human, even though individual genes were not shared, separate lists of genes nominally significant in human (915 genes p ≤ 0.05) and human homologues of the 42 mouse genes with p ≤ 0.05 were entered into DAVID.

Several mutated genes, CDKN2A, MET, KRAS, TP53, were nominally significant (p<0.05), but did not pass the FDR<0.1 multiple hypothesis test ( S3B Fig ).

Only behavioral measures showing a nominally significant association ( p < 0.05) with the same PRS factor in all three analytical scenarios (primary, updated GWAS, and PRS‐CS) were carried forward to the mediation analysis.