Cited by 1,458Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsGenetic diversity and population structure

Adjusting multiple testing in multilocus analyses using the eigenvalues of a correlation matrix

Open access
Li, J, Ji, L·2005·Heredity

Abstract

Correlated multiple testing is widely performed in genetic research, particularly in multilocus analyses of complex diseases. Failure to control appropriately for the effect of multiple testing will either result in a flood of false-positive claims or in true hits being overlooked. Cheverud proposed the idea of adjusting correlated tests as if they were independent, according to an 'effective number' (M(eff)) of independent tests. However, our experience has indicated that Cheverud's estimate of the Meff is overly large and will lead to excessively conservative results. We propose a more accurate estimate of the M(eff), and design M(eff)-based procedures to control the experiment-wise significant level and the false discovery rate. In an evaluation, based on both real and simulated data, the M(eff)-based procedures were able to control the error rate accurately and consequently resulted in a power increase, especially in multilocus analyses. The results confirm that the M(eff) is a useful concept in the error-rate control of correlated tests. With its efficiency and accuracy, the M(eff) method provides an alternative to computationally intensive methods such as the permutation test.

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/sj.hdy.6800717

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Modifications to the Bonferroni correction in the context of QTL mapping have been proposed by Cheverud (2001), and further modifications proposed by Li and Ji (2005).

    “Modifications to the Bonferroni correction in the context of QTL mapping have been proposed by Cheverud (2001), and further modifications proposed by Li and Ji (2005).”

    From The statistical analysis of multi-environment data: modeling genotype-by-environment interaction and its genetic basis (2013) · cites this paper as Li and Ji (2005)

    The Introduction says Li and Ji proposed a more accurate estimate of Cheverud’s effective number of tests and new procedures for controlling multiple testing. Cheverud’s work concerned interval-mapping genome scans, but Li and Ji describe their own extension in the context of multilocus analyses, not specifically QTL mapping. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For the maize data, the Li and Ji (2005) approach produced an effective number of tests n* = 81, which gives a larger threshold P value than the Bonferroni correction (0.05/81 instead of 0.05/246).

    “For the maize data, the Li and Ji (2005) approach produced a value of n* = 81, which gives a larger threshold P value than the Bonferroni correction (divide 0.05 by 81, instead of dividing by 246).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Clarkson DB, Fan Y-a, Joe H (1993). A remark on algorithm 643: FEXACT: an algorithm for performing Fisher's exact test in r  c contingency tables. ACM Trans Math Software (TOMS) 19: 484-488.
  2. Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991). Elements of Information Theory. Wiley-Interscience: New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, J., & Ji, L.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
ORCID
Li, J
Venue
Heredity
Published
2005-08-03
Volume
95
Issue
3
Pages
221-227
ISSN
  • 0018-067X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2540
OpenAlex
W2107755054
Cited by
1,458
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 74 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 88
FWCI
14.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
multiple testing correction, multilocus analysis, complex diseases, false discovery rate, statistical power
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Genetic Testing, Genetics, Medical, Models, Genetic, Research Design, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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