Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35356801›Full record

ArticleInternational statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique2020

Double Empirical Bayes Testing.

Wesley Tansey, Yixin Wang, Raul Rabadan, David M Blei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Wesley TanseyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Yixin WangDepartment of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Raul RabadanDepartment of Systems Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
David M BleiDepartment of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analyzing data from large-scale, multi-experiment studies requires scientists to both analyze each experiment and to assess the results as a whole. In this article, we develop double empirical Bayes testing (DEBT), an empirical Bayes method for analyzing multi-experiment studies when many covariates are gathered per experiment. DEBT is a two-stage method: in the first stage, it reports which experiments yielded significant outcomes; in the second stage, it hypothesizes which covariates drive the experimental significance. In both of its stages, DEBT builds on Efron (2008), which lays out an elegant empirical Bayes approach to testing. DEBT enhances this framework by learning a series of black box predictive models to boost power and control the false discovery rate (FDR). In Stage 1, it uses a deep neural network prior to report which experiments yielded significant outcomes. In Stage 2, it uses an empirical Bayes version of the knockoff filter (Candes et al., 2018) to select covariates that have significant predictive power of Stage-1 significance. In both simulated and real data, DEBT increases the proportion of discovered significant outcomes and selects more features when signals are weak. In a real study of cancer cell lines, DEBT selects a robust set of biologically-plausible genomic drivers of drug sensitivity and resistance in cancer.

Indexed as

cancer drug studiesempirical Bayesknockoffsmultiple testingtwo-groups model

Identifiers

PMID35356801
PMCPMC8963776

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.