ArticlePloS one2016
The Use of Multiplicity Corrections, Order Statistics and Generalized Family-Wise Statistics with Application to Genome-Wide Studies.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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.
- Algorithm for analyzing randomness in point patterns.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Trajectories of neighborhood environmental factors and their associations with asthma symptom trajectories among children in Australia: evidence from a national birth cohort study.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2022Article
- Article
- Transcriptomics-Based Drug Repurposing Approach Identifies Novel Drugs against Sorafenib-Resistant Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2020Article
- Multiple Testing in the Context of Gene Discovery in Sickle Cell Disease Using Genome-Wide Association Studies.Genomics insights · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The most important decision faced by large-scale studies, such as those presently encountered in human genetics, is to distinguish between those tests that are true positives from those that are not. In the context of genetics, this entails the determination of genetic markers that actually underlie medically-relevant phenotypes from a vast number of makers typically interrogated in genome-wide studies. A critical part of these decisions relies on the appropriate statistical assessment of data obtained from tests across numerous markers. Several methods have been developed to aid with such analyses, with family-wise approaches, such as the Bonferroni and Dunn-Šidàk corrections, being popular. Conditions that motivate the use of family-wise corrections are explored. Although simple to implement, one major limitation of these approaches is that they assume that p-values are i.i.d. uniformly distributed under the null hypothesis. However, several factors may violate this assumption in genome-wide studies including effects from confounding by population stratification, the presence of related individuals, the correlational structure among genetic markers, and the use of limiting distributions for test statistics. Even after adjustment for such effects, the distribution of p-values can substantially depart from a uniform distribution under the null hypothesis. In this work, I present a decision theory for the use of family-wise corrections for multiplicity and a generalization of the Dunn-Šidàk correction that relaxes the assumption of uniformly-distributed null p-values. The independence assumption is also relaxed and handled through calculating the effective number of independent tests. I also explicitly show the relationship between order statistics and family-wise correction procedures. This generalization may be applicable to multiplicity problems outside of genomics.
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.