ArticleBiometrics2024
Joint mirror procedure: controlling false discovery rate for identifying simultaneous signals.
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.
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
In many applications, the process of identifying a specific feature of interest often involves testing multiple hypotheses for their joint statistical significance. Examples include mediation analysis, which simultaneously examines the existence of the exposure-mediator and the mediator-outcome effects, and replicability analysis, aiming to identify simultaneous signals that exhibit statistical significance across multiple independent studies. In this work, we present a new approach called the joint mirror (JM) procedure that effectively detects such features while maintaining false discovery rate (FDR) control in finite samples. The JM procedure employs an iterative method that gradually shrinks the rejection region based on progressively revealed information until a conservative estimate of the false discovery proportion is below the target FDR level. Additionally, we introduce a more stringent error measure known as the composite FDR (cFDR), which assigns weights to each false discovery based on its number of null components. We use the leave-one-out technique to prove that the JM procedure controls the cFDR in finite samples. To implement the JM procedure, we propose an efficient algorithm that can incorporate partial ordering information. Through extensive simulations, we show that our procedure effectively controls the cFDR and enhances statistical power across various scenarios, including the case that test statistics are dependent across the features. Finally, we showcase the utility of our method by applying it to real-world mediation and replicability analyses.
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.