“nominally significant”

study 7 , 147 pQTLs (52.88%) were nominally significant ( P < 0.05) and accessible for comparisons.

We also identified 35 nominally significant differentially abundant proteins ( P < .05), with 84% of these detected at higher abundance after HS exposure.

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.

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.

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).

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 ).

Out of the 36 SNPs examined, 13 SNPs were found to be nominally significant (unadjusted p -value < 0.05) with individual items ( Table 4 ). 3.5.

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.

On the other hand, among the 986 SNPs with estimated PPR >99%, 47% were nominally significant with p < 0.05 in the replication cohort 23andMe, and 79% with consistent direction of effects.

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.

Nominally significant values ( p < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

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.

In childhood blood samples, these differences in blood DNAm of MTNR1B CpGs were nominally significant ( p < 0.05) and retained the same positive direction, suggesting persistence of associations.

The association tests for the original dataset resulted in about 5000 nominally significant SNPs (unadjusted P < 0.05, Additional file 2 : Table S2).

Although autism GWASs currently provide limited statistical power for these analyses, we observed nominally significant ( p < .05) enrichment of associations in the deep layer excitatory neuron FC-ExN-4 of the frontal cortex and oligodendrocyte precursor Thal-OPC of the thalamus by both MAGMA and SLDSR ( Figure S11 in Supplement 2 ).

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 ).

Aligning with the results from the MR analyses, 15/20 of nominally significant ( p < 0.05) sex-specific associations remained similar ( Z -test p > 0.05) in the cross-sex analyses, pointing to genetic pleiotropy rather than T action as the basis for many metabolic associations.

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.

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.

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.

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

To assess the relevance of individual SNPs, we performed single SNP MR analyses on each SNP individually and found that 141/253 SNPs shared the direction of the overall MR effect, from which 19/141 were also nominally significant in single SNP MR analyses (P < 0.05; Table 2 and Additional file 2 : Table S3).

Five of the 19 SNPs demonstrated a nominally significant association with neovascular AMD (P < 0.05), of which two (rs3173798 and rs3211883) withstood Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (rs3173798, nominal P = 9.96 × 10−4, allele-specific odds ratio = 0.55; rs3211883, nominal P = 2.09 × 10−4, allele-specific odds ratio = 0.50).

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 ).