ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2024
Combining Partial True Discovery Guarantee Procedures.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Closed testing has recently been shown to be optimal for simultaneous true discovery proportion control. It is, however, challenging to construct true discovery guarantee procedures in such a way that it focuses power on some feature sets chosen by users based on their specific interest or expertise. We propose a procedure that allows users to target power on prespecified feature sets, that is, "focus sets." Still, the method also allows inference for feature sets chosen post hoc, that is, "nonfocus sets," for which we deduce a true discovery lower confidence bound by interpolation. Our procedure is built from partial true discovery guarantee procedures combined with Holm's procedure and is a conservative shortcut to the closed testing procedure. A simulation study confirms that the statistical power of our method is relatively high for focus sets, at the cost of power for nonfocus sets, as desired. In addition, we investigate its power property for sets with specific structures, for example, trees and directed acyclic graphs. We also compare our method with AdaFilter in the context of replicability analysis. The application of our method is illustrated with a gene ontology analysis in gene expression data.
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.