ArticlePloS one2015
Assessing the Probability that a Finding Is Genuine for Large-Scale Genetic Association Studies.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying posterior effect size distribution of susceptibility loci by common summary statistics.Genetic epidemiology · 2020Article
- Bayesian prediction intervals for assessing P-value variability in prospective replication studies.Translational psychiatry · 2017Article
- The more you test, the more you find: The smallest P-values become increasingly enriched with real findings as more tests are conducted.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
- Invited Commentary: Can Issues With Reproducibility in Science Be Blamed on Hypothesis Testing?American journal of epidemiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.