IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0124107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Probability that a Finding Is Genuine for Large-Scale Genetic Association Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Ling Kuo
  • Olga A Vsevolozhskaya
  • Dmitri V Zaykin

Abstract

Genetic association studies routinely involve massive numbers of statistical tests accompanied by P-values. Whole genome sequencing technologies increased the potential number of tested variants to tens of millions. The more tests are performed, the smaller P-value is required to be deemed significant. However, a small P-value is not equivalent to small chances of a spurious finding and significance thresholds may fail to serve as efficient filters against false results. While the Bayesian approach can provide a direct assessment of the probability that a finding is spurious, its adoption in association studies has been slow, due in part to the ubiquity of P-values and the automated way they are, as a rule, produced by software packages. Attempts to design simple ways to convert an association P-value into the probability that a finding is spurious have been met with difficulties. The False Positive Report Probability (FPRP) method has gained increasing popularity. However, FPRP is not designed to estimate the probability for a particular finding, because it is defined for an entire region of hypothetical findings with P-values at least as small as the one observed for that finding. Here we propose a method that lets researchers extract probability that a finding is spurious directly from a P-value. Considering the counterpart of that probability, we term this method POFIG: the Probability that a Finding is Genuine. Our approach shares FPRP's simplicity, but gives a valid probability that a finding is spurious given a P-value. In addition to straightforward interpretation, POFIG has desirable statistical properties. The POFIG average across a set of tentative associations provides an estimated proportion of false discoveries in that set. POFIGs are easily combined across studies and are immune to multiple testing and selection bias. We illustrate an application of POFIG method via analysis of GWAS associations with Crohn's disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Ling Kuo & Olga A Vsevolozhskaya & Dmitri V Zaykin, 2015. "Assessing the Probability that a Finding Is Genuine for Large-Scale Genetic Association Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-24, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0124107
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124107
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124107&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0124107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0124107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.