ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012
False discovery rate control in two-stage designs.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A trans-omics gene-smoking interaction study of lung cancer based on consortium data.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative brain metabolomics reveals shared and distinct metabolic alterations in Alzheimer's disease and progressive supranuclear palsy.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Distinct Features of Plasma Ultrashort Single-Stranded Cell-Free DNA as Biomarkers for Lung Cancer Detection.Clinical chemistry · 2023Article
- Sex-specific airway hyperreactivity and sex-specific transcriptome remodeling in neonatal piglets challenged with intra-airway acid.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2019Article
- Using multivariate cross correlations, Granger causality and graphical models to quantify spatiotemporal synchronization and causality between pest populations.BMC ecology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor gene expression or gene association studies with a large number of hypotheses the number of measurements per marker in a conventional single-stage design is often low due to limited resources. Two-stage designs have been proposed where in a first stage promising hypotheses are identified and further investigated in the second stage with larger sample sizes. For two types of two-stage designs proposed in the literature we derive multiple testing procedures controlling the False Discovery Rate (FDR) demonstrating FDR control by simulations: designs where a fixed number of top-ranked hypotheses are selected and designs where the selection in the interim analysis is based on an FDR threshold. In contrast to earlier approaches which use only the second-stage data in the hypothesis tests (pilot approach), the proposed testing procedures are based on the pooled data from both stages (integrated approach).
resultsFor both selection rules the multiple testing procedures control the FDR in the considered simulation scenarios. This holds for the case of independent observations across hypotheses as well as for certain correlation structures. Additionally, we show that in scenarios with small effect sizes the testing procedures based on the pooled data from both stages can give a considerable improvement in power compared to tests based on the second-stage data only.
conclusionThe proposed hypothesis tests provide a tool for FDR control for the considered two-stage designs. Comparing the integrated approaches for both selection rules with the corresponding pilot approaches showed an advantage of the integrated approach in many simulation scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.