“nominally significant”

Results were considered nominally significant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

If one is interested in filtering a large list of nominally significant findings (p < 0.05) to identify a subset most worthy of follow-up, instead of characterizing the evidence for a single finding, our flexible scoring system can be utilized in this setting as well.

Effect estimates for most proteins remained consistent after adjustment for these factors, but standard errors increased such that only Nt-proBNP, CXCL13 and the complement factors remained significant at the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold (Table 2 ) although all proteins except IL-1RA and tPA remained nominally significant at p < 0.05.

In females, we found a significantly higher proportion of CpGs showing increased variability with age among nominally significant ( p < 0.05) CpGs under inactivation, but not among CpGs escaping inactivation.

Among these CpGs, 129 were nominally significant ( p value < 0.05) in at least one of our models (total number of ACEs: 14 CpGs; total number of ACEs categorical, 1–3 vs. 0: 8 CpGs; 4–10 vs. 0: 12 CpGs; 4–10 vs. 1–3: 15 CpGs; mutually adjusted, emotional abuse: 13 CpGs; physical abuse: 11 CpGs; sexual abuse: 11 CpGs; emotional neglect: 19 CpGs; physical neglect: 10 CpGs; domestic violence: 15 CpGs; substance abuse: 20 CpGs; mental illness: 23 CpGs; incarceration: 13 CpGs; divorce: 9 CpGs), although none remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons in our EWAS (Additional file 2 : Table S1).

Out of these, 12 demonstrated nominally significant associations with the EC 50 of DOX ( p < 0.05; Table 2 ).

We performed over-/under-representation analysis of GO themes in the genes where the RBP plus model was nominally significant (p < 0.05), using uncorrected p-values for GO analysis to reduce the false negative rate of a stricter FDR-based threshold.

Along with P values, the test statistic Z value is presented to represent the strength of the association of the covariate with the outcome, with absolute values of Z ≥ 1.96 representing a nominally significant P value ≤ 0.05.

Patients with LSM ≥16.9 kPa experienced a nominally significant reduction in mean ALP from 220 U/L (95% CI, 170‐285) at initiation to 211 U/L (95% CI, 157‐283) at 12 months ( P < 0.05) compared to patients with an LSM <16.9 kPa (n = 45), who demonstrated a 67‐U/L reduction in mean ALP from 288 U/L (95% CI, 249‐332) to 221 U/L (95% CI, 191‐256) over 12 months ( P < 0.01), although ALP at initiation was lower among those with advanced disease (Supporting Table S2 ).

In eyes with serous PED at baseline, faricimab resulted in a greater decrease in maximum PED thickness throughout head-to-head dosing compared with aflibercept ( Fig 1 B), with nominally significant differences (nominal P < 0.05) at weeks 4 and 12.

We then applied sensitivity analyses for nominally significant results ( P -value < 0.05), namely: heterogeneity test (Cochran’s Q), horizontal pleiotropy (MR Egger intercept), detection of outliers with MR Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier test (MR-PRESSO v1.0) 46 and directionality validation.

The following criteria were used to determine the differential abundance of proteins in the septic/aseptic group: (i) proteins that were identified in at least 60% of the samples in at least one group and (ii) for which a nominally significant difference in protein abundance was observed between conditions (unadjusted p < 0.05).

While no effect differences were significant at Bonferroni-corrected p -value thresholds, we observed 35, 31, and 8 nominally significant ( p < 0.05) effect differences for Blacks compared to Whites for hospitalization ( Figure S4 ), ICU/admission ( Figure S5 ), and death ( Figure S6 ), respectively.

After conducting heritability analysis across 139 immune traits, we identified 10 immune traits with significant heritability (FDR p < 0.05), and 23 other traits with nominally significant heritability (p < 0.05) in at least one ancestry group.

First, we examined the distribution of 5 807 nominally significant (P < 0.05 unadjusted) SNPs that differed between genera.

While we did not find any significant associations between immune cell subtypes and ALS and AD PGSs when controlling for the false discovery rate (FDR = 0.05), we observed several nominally significant results ( p < 0.05) with consistent effect directions across strata.

This effect was nominally significant (p < 0.05) for four of the eight fingers tested: left 2 nd finger, left 5 th finger, right 2 nd finger, and right 4 th finger ( Table 2 ).

As a matter of fact, only 10% of SNPs from the Candidate Set 1 had nominally significant p -values < 0.05, while 42% of SNPs from Set 2 were nominally significant at the same α.

Nevertheless, in the Breslow–Day test, we detected that only two (rs72854462 and rs1438898 mapped to TEX41 gene) of the 821 tested SNPs were nominally significant ( p < 0.05), signaling heterogeneity in the odds ratios (OR) of these variants between Mexico and Colombia (see Supplementary Table 3 ).

In this study, we focused our expanded analysis at the functional level by considering genes harboring nominally significant SNP associations with wood traits at P < 0.05.

Since the primary endpoints in both trials did not reach statistical significance, all other p-values <0.05 for both predefined subgroups and post hoc analyses are considered nominally significant and hypothesis-generating.

Nominally significant negative associations (at P < .05) were observed between EEAA and both education and SIMD (0.076 standard deviation [SD] decrease in EEAA per SD increase in education, P = .048; 0.05 SD decrease in EEAA per SD increase in SIMD, P < .001). 3.3.

However, the ADL scale had a nominally significant ( p ‐value <0.05) association with total cerebellar volume and cervical spinal cord CSA (Table S4 ).

Epigenome-wide association study of Frailty Index Testing 723,029 lsBINs in 50 FI discordant MZ twin pairs (Gr1) implementing paired t tests revealed overall N D = 27,485 bins that showed nominally significant associations ( P < 0.05), and of these, the top 20 association signals were ranged P = 7.01 −5 to 2.17 −6 .

Resulting group-level oscillations were nominally significant (G-cosinor p < 0.05) in 5.9% to 85.8% of ROIs across seven of the nine MRI metrics (Supplementary Table 4 ).