Power boosting for ordered multiple hypotheses with application to genome-wide association studies

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/jcia2022.1.1.1

Keywords:

false discovery rate, family-wise error rate, multiple testing

Abstract

A method for addressing the multiplicity problem is proposed in the setting where the hypotheses test sites may be arranged in some order based on a notion of proximity, such as SNPs of a chromosome in genetic association studies. It is shown that this method is able to control family-wise error rate in the weak sense and numerical evidence shows that this method controls false discovery rate in the strong sense under sparsity. The method is applied to some genome- wide association studies data with asthma and it is argued that this Power Boosting method may be combined with existing error- rate controlling methods in order to improve true positive rates at controllable and possibly negligible cost to the nominal level of error- rate control.

References

Aslam, M., & Albassam, M. (2020). Presenting post hoc multiple comparison tests under neutrosophic statistics. Journal of King Saud University Science, 32(6), 2728-2732.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57(1), 289–300.

Bogdan, M., Chakrabarti, A., Frommlet, F., & Ghosh, J. (2011). Asymptotic bayes-optimality under sparsity of some multiple testing procedures. The Annals of Statistics, 39(3), 1551–1579.

Dmitrienko, A., Bretz, F., Westfall, P., Troendle, J., Wiens, B., Tamhane, A., & Hsu, J. (2010). Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics. Chapman and Hall.

Efron, B., Tibshirani, R., Storey, J., & Tusher, V. (2001). Empirical bayes analysis of a microarray experiment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456), 1151–1160.

Frommlet, F., & Bogdan, M. (2013). Some optimality properties of fdr controlling rules under sparsity. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 7, 1328–1368.

Ghosh, A., & Chakraborty, A. (2017). Use of em algorithm for data reduction under sparsity assumption. Computational Statistics, 32, 387–407.

Gwasbot. (n.d.). https://twitter.com/SbotGwa status/1422180670240067585. (Accessed: 2021-08-3)

Ikram, M., Xueling, S., Jensen, R., Cotch, M., & Hewitt, A. (2010). Four novel loci (19q13, 6q24, 12q24, and 5q14) influence the microcirculation in vivo. PLoS Genet., 6(10), e1001184.

Kirsch, A., Mitzenmacher, M., Pietracaprina, A., Pucci, G., Upfal, E., & Vandin, F. (2012). An efficient rigorous approach for identifying statistically significant frequent itemsets. Journal of the ACM, 59(3), 12:1– 12:22.

Lee, C., & Steigerwald, D. (2020). Inference for clustered data. The Stata Journal, 18(2), 447-460.

Miller, R. (1981). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York: Springer.

Noble, W. (2009). How does multiple testing correction work? Nature Biotechnology, 27(12), 1135–1137.

Qu, H., Tien, M., & Polychronakos, C. (2010). Statistical significance in genetic association studies. Investigative Medicine, 33(5), 266–270.

Sid´ak, Z. (1967). Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(318), 626–633.

Ukbb. (n.d.). https://ukbb-rg.hail.is/rgsummary200021111.html. (Accessed : 2021 − 08 − 3)

Verhoeven, K., Simonsen, K., & McIntyre, L. (2005). Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. OIKOS, 108(3), 643–647.

Wilkinson, B. (1951). A statistical consideration in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 48(3), 156–158.

Yang, Q., Cui, J., Chazaro, I., Cupples, A., & Demissie, S. (2005). Power and type i error rate of false discovery rate approaches in genome-wide association studies. BMC Genetics, 6(1), S134.

Downloads

Published

27-01-2022

How to Cite

Ramos, M. L. F., & Park, D. (2022). Power boosting for ordered multiple hypotheses with application to genome-wide association studies. Journal of Computational Innovation and Analytics (JCIA), 1(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.32890/jcia2022.1.1.1

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-18
0 citations recorded so far

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/jcia2022.1.1.1 OpenAlex W4210682223 Semantic Scholar CorpusID 246381327