ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2015
Hypothesis testing at the extremes: fast and robust association for high-throughput data.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improve the Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis Using Gut Microbiome Data.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Set-based differential covariance testing for genomics.Stat (International Statistical Institute) · 2019Article
- Estimation of cis-eQTL effect sizes using a log of linear model.Biometrics · 2018Article
- A Zero-inflated Beta-binomial Model for Microbiome Data Analysis.Stat (International Statistical Institute) · 2018Article
- Changes in vaginal community state types reflect major shifts in the microbiome.Microbial ecology in health and disease · 2017Article
- A Pipeline for High-Throughput Concentration Response Modeling of Gene Expression for Toxicogenomics.Frontiers in genetics · 2017Article
- Pathway analysis for RNA-Seq data using a score-based approach.Biometrics · 2016Article
- A hybrid method of the sequential Monte Carlo and the Edgeworth expansion for computation of very smallStatistical methods in medical researchArticle
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
Abstract
A number of biomedical problems require performing many hypothesis tests, with an attendant need to apply stringent thresholds. Often the data take the form of a series of predictor vectors, each of which must be compared with a single response vector, perhaps with nuisance covariates. Parametric tests of association are often used, but can result in inaccurate type I error at the extreme thresholds, even for large sample sizes. Furthermore, standard two-sided testing can reduce power compared with the doubled [Formula: see text]-value, due to asymmetry in the null distribution. Exact (permutation) testing is attractive, but can be computationally intensive and cumbersome. We present an approximation to exact association tests of trend that is accurate and fast enough for standard use in high-throughput settings, and can easily provide standard two-sided or doubled [Formula: see text]-values. The approach is shown to be equivalent under permutation to likelihood ratio tests for the most commonly used generalized linear models (GLMs). For linear regression, covariates are handled by working with covariate-residualized responses and predictors. For GLMs, stratified covariates can be handled in a manner similar to exact conditional testing. Simulations and examples illustrate the wide applicability of the approach. The accompanying mcc package is available on CRAN http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mcc/index.html.
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.