Cited by 4,146Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research

Benjamini, Yoav, Drai, Dan, Elmer, Greg, Kafkafi, Neri, Golani, Ilan·2001·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

The screening of many endpoints when comparing groups from different strains, searching for some statistically significant difference, raises the multiple comparisons problem in its most severe form. Using the 0.05 level to decide which of the many endpoints' differences are statistically significant, the probability of finding a difference to be significant even though it is not real increases far beyond 0.05. The traditional approach to this problem has been to control the probability of making even one such error--the Bonferroni procedure being the most familiar procedure achieving such control. However, the incurred loss of power stemming from such control led many practitioners to neglect multiplicity control altogether. The False Discovery Rate (FDR), suggested by Benjamini and Hochberg [J Royal Stat Soc Ser B 57 (1995) 289], is a new, different, and compromising point of view regarding the error in multiple comparisons. The FDR is the expected proportion of false discoveries among the discoveries, and controlling the FDR goes a long way towards controlling the increased error from multiplicity while losing less in the ability to discover real differences. In this paper we demonstrate the problem in two studies: the study of exploratory behavior [Behav Brain Res (2001)], and the study of the interaction of strain differences with laboratory environment [Science 284 (1999) 1670]. We explain the FDR criterion, and present two simple procedures that control the FDR. We demonstrate their increased power when used in the above two studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0166-4328(01)00297-2

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benjamini, Y., Drai, D., Elmer, G., Kafkafi, N., & Golani, I.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
Corresponding author
Benjamini, Yoav
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-11
Volume
125
Issue
1-2
Pages
279-284
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145025818
Cited by
4,146
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 187 · 2025: 231 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 237 · 2022: 278 · 2021: 301 · 2020: 276 · 2019: 277 · 2018: 207 · 2017: 225 · 2016: 208 · 2015: 171 · 2014: 207 · 2013: 215 · 2012: 175
FWCI
28.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ns040234-03)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (1R01 NS 40234-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
false discovery rate, multiple comparisons, multiplicity control, Bonferroni procedure, statistical power, inbred mouse strains, exploratory behavior, laboratory conditions, behavioral genetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Exploratory Behavior, Genetics, Behavioral, Mice, Inbred Strains, Phenotype, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review