False discovery rate, sensitivity and sample size for microarray studies
Open accessAbstract
MOTIVATION: In microarray data studies most researchers are keenly aware of the potentially high rate of false positives and the need to control it. One key statistical shift is the move away from the well-known P-value to false discovery rate (FDR). Less discussion perhaps has been spent on the sensitivity or the associated false negative rate (FNR). The purpose of this paper is to explain in simple ways why the shift from P-value to FDR for statistical assessment of microarray data is necessary, to elucidate the determining factors of FDR and, for a two-sample comparative study, to discuss its control via sample size at the design stage. RESULTS: We use a mixture model, involving differentially expressed (DE) and non-DE genes, that captures the most common problem of finding DE genes. Factors determining FDR are (1) the proportion of truly differentially expressed genes, (2) the distribution of the true differences, (3) measurement variability and (4) sample size. Many current small microarray studies are plagued with large FDR, but controlling FDR alone can lead to unacceptably large FNR. In evaluating a design of a microarray study, sensitivity or FNR curves should be computed routinely together with FDR curves. Under certain assumptions, the FDR and FNR curves coincide, thus simplifying the choice of sample size for controlling the FDR and FNR jointly.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Only 11 genes, including TREM2, remained significant after adjustment of the absolute fold change cutoff to a FDR < 0.05.
“Only 11 genes, including TREM2, remained significant after adjustment of the absolute fold change cutoff to a FDR < 0.05 [40] (Supplementary Table 1).”
From TREM2 activation on microglia promotes myelin debris clearance and remyelination in a model of multiple sclerosis (2020) · cites this paper as [40]
Section 2.1 describes using a fold-change statistic to set a cutoff for declaring genes differentially expressed, and Section 3.3 discusses extending FDR analysis to fold-change statistics. The paper does not report that 11 genes, including TREM2, remained significant, or document the claimed FDR < 0.05 result. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Hochberg,Y. and Tamhane,A. (1987) Multiple Comparison Procedures. Wiley, NY.
- Storey,J.D. and Tibshirani,R. (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 9440-9445.
- Tibshirani,R. et al. (2002) Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 6567-6572.
- Tusher,V. et al. (2001) Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 5116-5121.
- Westfall,P.H. and Young,S.S. (1993) Resampling Based Multiple Testing. Wiley, NY.
- Yang,Y.H. and Speed,T. (2003) Design and analysis of comparative microarray experi- ments. In Speed,T. (ed.), Statistical Analysis of Gene Expression Microarray Data. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 35-92.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation
Segata, N., Izard, J., Waldron, L., Gevers, D., Miropolsky, L., Garrett, W. S., & Huttenhower, C. (2011) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 · Cited by 16,192 · see citing works
Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus
Allison, D. B., Cui, X., Page, G. P., & Sabripour, M. (2006) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1749 · Cited by 1,339 · see citing works
Cignarella, F., Filipello, F., Bollman, B., Cantoni, C., Locca, A., Mikesell, R., Manis, M., Ibrahim, A., Deng, L., Benitez, B. A., et al. (2020) · Acta Neuropathologica · doi:10.1007/s00401-020-02193-z · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Cornejo-Granados, F., Lopez-Zavala, A. A., Gallardo-Becerra, L., Mendoza-Vargas, A., Sánchez, F., Vichido, R., Brieba, L. G., Viana, M. T., Sotelo-Mundo, R. R., & Ochoa-Leyva, A. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11805-w · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Beta-Poisson model for single-cell RNA-seq data analyses
Vu, T. N., Wills, Q. F., Kalari, K. R., Niu, N., Wang, L., Rantalainen, M., & Pawitan, Y. (2016) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btw202 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Huang, Q., Lin, B., Liu, H., Ma, X., Mo, F., Yu, W., Li, L., Li, H., Tian, T., Wu, D., et al. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026168 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pawitan, Y., Michiels, S., Koscielny, S., Gusnanto, A., & Ploner, A.
- Affiliations
- Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
- Karolinska Institutet (SE)
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-04-19
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 3017-3024
- ISSN
- 0266-7061 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4803
- 1460-2059
- OpenAlex
- W2128909276
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 10.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Computer applications in the biosciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- 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
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Keywords
- false discovery rate, sensitivity, false negative rate, sample size determination, microarray data, differentially expressed genes, mixture models, p-values, two-sample comparison, measurement variability, statistical design
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Computer Simulation, False Positive Reactions, Models, Biological, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Sample Size, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling
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