ArticleBiometrics2024
Asymptotic uncertainty of false discovery proportion.
Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Causal relationship between circulating inflammatory cytokines and the risk of hernia: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
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
Multiple testing has been a prominent topic in statistical research. Despite extensive work in this area, controlling false discoveries remains a challenging task, especially when the test statistics exhibit dependence. Various methods have been proposed to estimate the false discovery proportion (FDP) under arbitrary dependencies among the test statistics. One key approach is to transform arbitrary dependence into weak dependence and subsequently establish the strong consistency of FDP and false discovery rate under weak dependence. As a result, FDPs converge to the same asymptotic limit within the framework of weak dependence. However, we have observed that the asymptotic variance of FDP can be significantly influenced by the dependence structure of the test statistics, even when they exhibit only weak dependence. Quantifying this variability is of great practical importance, as it serves as an indicator of the quality of FDP estimation from the data. To the best of our knowledge, there is limited research on this aspect in the literature. In this paper, we aim to fill in this gap by quantifying the variation of FDP, assuming that the test statistics exhibit weak dependence and follow normal distributions. We begin by deriving the asymptotic expansion of the FDP and subsequently investigate how the asymptotic variance of the FDP is influenced by different dependence structures. Based on the insights gained from this study, we recommend that in multiple testing procedures utilizing FDP, reporting both the mean and variance estimates of FDP can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the study's outcomes.
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.