Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21912585›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Combining independent, weighted P-values: achieving computational stability by a systematic expansion with controllable accuracy.

Gelio Alves, Yi-Kuo Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gelio AlvesNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Yi-Kuo Yu

Funding

Robust Accurate Identification of peptides from tandem mass spectrometry dataZIALM092404 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI YU, YI-KUO · 2009 to 2025
$13.2M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the expanding availability of scientific data and tools to analyze them, combining different assessments of the same piece of information has become increasingly important for social, biological, and even physical sciences. This task demands, to begin with, a method-independent standard, such as the P-value, that can be used to assess the reliability of a piece of information. Good's formula and Fisher's method combine independent P-values with respectively unequal and equal weights. Both approaches may be regarded as limiting instances of a general case of combining P-values from m groups; P-values within each group are weighted equally, while weight varies by group. When some of the weights become nearly degenerate, as cautioned by Good, numeric instability occurs in computation of the combined P-values. We deal explicitly with this difficulty by deriving a controlled expansion, in powers of differences in inverse weights, that provides both accurate statistics and stable numerics. We illustrate the utility of this systematic approach with a few examples. In addition, we also provide here an alternative derivation for the probability distribution function of the general case and show how the analytic formula obtained reduces to both Good's and Fisher's methods as special cases. A C++ program, which computes the combined P-values with equal numerical stability regardless of whether weights are (nearly) degenerate or not, is available for download at our group website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Yu/downloads/CoinedPValues.html.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalProbability

Identifiers

PMID21912585
PMCPMC3166143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.