Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25955023›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Assessing the Probability that a Finding Is Genuine for Large-Scale Genetic Association Studies.

Chia-Ling Kuo, Olga A Vsevolozhskaya, Dmitri V Zaykin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Chia-Ling KuoDepartment of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, United Sates of America.
Olga A VsevolozhskayaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatisitcs, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Dmitri V ZaykinNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Statistical, population genetics and genetic epidemiologyZIAES101866 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ZAYKIN, DMITRI V · 2009 to 2021
$5.8M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic association studies routinely involve massive numbers of statistical tests accompanied by P-values. Whole genome sequencing technologies increased the potential number of tested variants to tens of millions. The more tests are performed, the smaller P-value is required to be deemed significant. However, a small P-value is not equivalent to small chances of a spurious finding and significance thresholds may fail to serve as efficient filters against false results. While the Bayesian approach can provide a direct assessment of the probability that a finding is spurious, its adoption in association studies has been slow, due in part to the ubiquity of P-values and the automated way they are, as a rule, produced by software packages. Attempts to design simple ways to convert an association P-value into the probability that a finding is spurious have been met with difficulties. The False Positive Report Probability (FPRP) method has gained increasing popularity. However, FPRP is not designed to estimate the probability for a particular finding, because it is defined for an entire region of hypothetical findings with P-values at least as small as the one observed for that finding. Here we propose a method that lets researchers extract probability that a finding is spurious directly from a P-value. Considering the counterpart of that probability, we term this method POFIG: the Probability that a Finding is Genuine. Our approach shares FPRP's simplicity, but gives a valid probability that a finding is spurious given a P-value. In addition to straightforward interpretation, POFIG has desirable statistical properties. The POFIG average across a set of tentative associations provides an estimated proportion of false discoveries in that set. POFIGs are easily combined across studies and are immune to multiple testing and selection bias. We illustrate an application of POFIG method via analysis of GWAS associations with Crohn's disease.

Indexed as

Genetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseProbabilityCrohn DiseaseFalse Positive ReactionsGenetic LociHumansModels, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID25955023
PMCPMC4425705

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.