Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27240256›Full record

ArticleNature methods2016

Data-driven hypothesis weighting increases detection power in genome-scale multiple testing.

Nikolaos Ignatiadis, Bernd Klaus, Judith B Zaugg, Wolfgang Huber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 351 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
351citing 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

351 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Onvansertib in Combination With Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab in Second-Line Treatment ofJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The role of ATF4 in neurons under mitochondrial stress.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

291 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Nikolaos IgnatiadisEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Bernd KlausEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Judith B ZauggEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Wolfgang HuberEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0474-2218

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypothesis weighting improves the power of large-scale multiple testing. We describe independent hypothesis weighting (IHW), a method that assigns weights using covariates independent of the P-values under the null hypothesis but informative of each test's power or prior probability of the null hypothesis (http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/IHW). IHW increases power while controlling the false discovery rate and is a practical approach to discovering associations in genomics, high-throughput biology and other large data sets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalGenome, HumanModels, TheoreticalComputer SimulationFalse Positive ReactionsGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHumansSoftware

Identifiers

PMID27240256
PMCPMC4930141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.