Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,754

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies

Open access
Wacholder, Sholom, Chanock, Stephen, Garcia-Closas, Montserrat, El ghormli, Laure, Rothman, Nathaniel·2004·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
DOI 10.1093/jnci/djh075
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Too many reports of associations between genetic variants and common cancer sites and other complex diseases are false positives. A major reason for this unfortunate situation is the strategy of declaring statistical significance based on a P value alone, particularly, any P value below .05. The false positive report probability (FPRP), the probability of no true association between a genetic variant and disease given a statistically significant finding, depends not only on the observed P value but also on both the prior probability that the association between the genetic variant and the disease is real and the statistical power of the test. In this commentary, we show how to assess the FPRP and how to use it to decide whether a finding is deserving of attention or “noteworthy.” We show how this approach can lead to improvements in the design, analysis, and interpretation of molecular epidemiology studies. Our proposal can help investigators, editors, and readers of research articles to protect themselves from overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are not likely to signify a true association. An FPRP-based criterion for deciding whether to call a finding noteworthy formalizes the process already used informally by investigators—that is, tempering enthusiasm for remarkable study findings with considerations of plausibility.

Overview

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 · 10.1093/jnci/djh075

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Freely associating. Nat Genet1999; 22: 1–2. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet2001; 29: 306–9. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Thomas DC, Witte JS. Point: population stratification: a problem for case-control studies of candidate-gene associations? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2002; 11: 505–12.
  4. Wacholder S, Rothman N, Caporaso N. Counterpoint: bias from population stratification is not a major threat to the validity of conclusions from epidemiological studies of common polymorphisms and cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2002; 11: 513–20.
  5. Colhoun HM, McKeigue PM, Davey Smith G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet2003; 361: 865–72. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Morton NE, Collins A. Tests and estimates of allelic association in complex inheritance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1998; 95: 11389–93. · DOI
  7. Wacholder S, Rothman N, Caporaso N. Population stratification in epidemiologic studies of common genetic variants and cancer: quantification of bias. J Natl Cancer Inst2000; 92: 1151–8. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med1999; 130: 1005–13. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cox DR. Another comment on the role of statistical methods. BMJ2001; 322: 231. · DOI · Paper page
  10. García-Closas M, Wacholder S, Caporaso N, Rothman N. Inference issues in cohort and case-control studies of genetic effects and gene-environment interactions. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W, editors. Human genome epidemiology: a scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2004. p. 127–44.
  11. Browner WS, Newman TB. Are all significant P values created equal? The analogy between diagnostic tests and clinical research. JAMA1987; 257: 2459–63. · DOI
  12. Engel LS, Taioli E, Pfeiffer R, Garcia-Closas M, Marcus PM, Lan Q, et al. Pooled analysis and meta-analysis of glutathione S-transferase M1 and bladder cancer: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol2002; 156: 95–109. · DOI
  13. Marcus PM, Vineis P, Rothman N. NAT2 slow acetylation and bladder cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 22 case-control studies conducted in the general population. Pharmacogenetics2000; 10: 115–22. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Ng PC, Henikoff S. Accounting for human polymorphisms predicted to affect protein function. Genome Res2002; 12: 436–46. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Duan J, Wainwright MS, Comeron JM, Saitou N, Sanders AR, Gelernter J, et al. Synonymous mutations in the human dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) affect mRNA stability and synthesis of the receptor. Hum Mol Genet2003; 12: 205–16. · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddg055 · Paper page
  16. Chanock S. Candidate genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the study of human disease. Dis Markers2001; 17: 89–98. · DOI
  17. Little J, Bradley L, Bray MS, Clyne M, Dorman J, Ellsworth DL, et al. Reporting, appraising, and integrating data on genotype prevalence and gene-disease associations. Am J Epidemiol2002; 156: 300–10. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fallin D, Cohen A, Essioux L, Chumakov I, Blumenfeld M, Cohen D, et al. Genetic analysis of case/control data using estimated haplotype frequencies: application to APOE locus variation and Alzheimer’s disease. Genome Res2001; 11: 143–51. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Kuschel B, Auranen A, McBride S, Novik KL, Antoniou A, Lipscombe JM, et al. Variants in DNA double-strand break repair genes and breast cancer susceptibility. Hum Mol Genet2002; 11: 1399–407. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Healey CS, Dunning AM, Teare MD, Chase D, Parker L, Burn J, et al. A common variant in BRCA2 is associated with both breast cancer risk and prenatal viability. Nat Genet2000; 26: 362–4. · doi:10.1038/81691
  21. Goode EL, Ulrich CM, Potter JD. Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and associations with cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2002; 11: 1513–30.
  22. Weinberg CR. It’s time to rehabilitate the P-value. Epidemiology2001; 12: 288–90. · DOI
  23. Risch N, Merikangas K. The future of genetic studies of complex human diseases. Science1996; 273: 1516–7. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sabatti C, Service S, Freimer N. False discovery rate in linkage and association genome screens for complex disorders. Genetics2003; 164: 829–33. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Efron B, Tibshirani R. Empirical Bayes methods and false discovery rates for microarrays. Genet Epidemiol2002; 23: 70–86. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,754

Metadata

Authors
Wacholder, S., Chanock, S., Garcia-Closas, M., El ghormli, L., & Rothman, N.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-03-17
Volume
96
Issue
6
Pages
434-442
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djh075
OpenAlex
W2102945991
Cited by
1,754
References
8
FWCI
61.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djh075
The paper
Wacholder, S., Chanock, S., Garcia-Closas, M., El ghormli, L., & Rothman, N. (2004). Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh075

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.