IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0176124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of multiple testing adjustment methods with block-correlation positively-dependent tests

Author

Listed:
  • John R Stevens
  • Abdullah Al Masud
  • Anvar Suyundikov

Abstract

In high dimensional data analysis (such as gene expression, spatial epidemiology, or brain imaging studies), we often test thousands or more hypotheses simultaneously. As the number of tests increases, the chance of observing some statistically significant tests is very high even when all null hypotheses are true. Consequently, we could reach incorrect conclusions regarding the hypotheses. Researchers frequently use multiplicity adjustment methods to control type I error rates—primarily the family-wise error rate (FWER) or the false discovery rate (FDR)—while still desiring high statistical power. In practice, such studies may have dependent test statistics (or p-values) as tests can be dependent on each other. However, some commonly-used multiplicity adjustment methods assume independent tests. We perform a simulation study comparing several of the most common adjustment methods involved in multiple hypothesis testing, under varying degrees of block-correlation positive dependence among tests.

Suggested Citation

  • John R Stevens & Abdullah Al Masud & Anvar Suyundikov, 2017. "A comparison of multiple testing adjustment methods with block-correlation positively-dependent tests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176124
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176124
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176124&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0176124?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Serafino Mancuso & Emily Brennan & Kimberley Dunstone & Amanda Vittiglia & Sarah Durkin & James F. Thrasher & Janet Hoek & Melanie Wakefield, 2021. "Australian Smokers’ Sensory Experiences and Beliefs Associated with Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarettes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Hué, Sullivan & Lucotte, Yannick & Tokpavi, Sessi, 2019. "Measuring network systemic risk contributions: A leave-one-out approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 86-114.
    3. Sullivan HUE & Yannick LUCOTTE & Sessi TOKPAVI, 2018. "Measuring Network Systemic Risk Contributions: A Leave-one-out Approach," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2608, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.

    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:pone00:0176124. 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.