Cited by 772Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classificationStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

How does multiple testing correction work?

Open access
Noble, William S·2009·Nature Biotechnology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt1209-1135

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • For methods returning a false discovery rate, the proportion of highly expressed genes among all tested genes influences power after multiple testing correction.

    “For methods that return a false discovery rate (FDR), the proportion of genes that are highly expressed out of the total set of genes being tested will also influence the power of detection after multiple testing correction [193].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [193]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noble, W. S.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Noble, William S
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2009-12
Volume
27
Issue
12
Pages
1135-1137
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2002420618
Cited by
772
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
FWCI
5.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR0011823, P41RR011823)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
multiple testing correction, false positives, significance testing, high-throughput experimentation, hit prioritization, statistical analysis
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Artifacts

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