Cited by 225Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsGene expression and cancer classificationStatistical Methods and Inference

Effects of dependence in high-dimensional multiple testing problems

Open access
Kim, Kyung In, van de Wiel, Mark A·2008·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We consider effects of dependence among variables of high-dimensional data in multiple hypothesis testing problems, in particular the False Discovery Rate (FDR) control procedures. Recent simulation studies consider only simple correlation structures among variables, which is hardly inspired by real data features. Our aim is to systematically study effects of several network features like sparsity and correlation strength by imposing dependence structures among variables using random correlation matrices. RESULTS: We study the robustness against dependence of several FDR procedures that are popular in microarray studies, such as Benjamin-Hochberg FDR, Storey's q-value, SAM and resampling based FDR procedures. False Non-discovery Rates and estimates of the number of null hypotheses are computed from those methods and compared. Our simulation study shows that methods such as SAM and the q-value do not adequately control the FDR to the level claimed under dependence conditions. On the other hand, the adaptive Benjamini-Hochberg procedure seems to be most robust while remaining conservative. Finally, the estimates of the number of true null hypotheses under various dependence conditions are variable. CONCLUSION: We discuss a new method for efficient guided simulation of dependent data, which satisfy imposed network constraints as conditional independence structures. Our simulation set-up allows for a structural study of the effect of dependencies on multiple testing criterions and is useful for testing a potentially new method on pi0 or FDR estimation in a dependency context.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-9-114

Cites

34 of 35 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?

  • FDR correction is appropriate and robust for biological data that inherently show dependencies.

    “FDR correction was chosen as it has been shown to be appropriate and robust for biological data that inherently show dependencies, such as those in the present study [60, 61, 62].”

    From Interpersonal Synchronization of Autonomic Physiology via Mere Visual Contact (2026) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Abstract’s Results section reports that adaptive Benjamini–Hochberg was robust under dependence, supporting the choice of a particular FDR procedure. But it also reports that SAM and q-value did not adequately control FDR under dependence. The paper therefore does not support calling FDR correction generally robust for dependent biological data; the reported comparison is a simulation study. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, K. I., & van de Wiel, M. A.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Kim, Kyung In
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2008-02-25
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
114-114
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116319049
Cited by
220
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
multiple comparisons, false discovery rate, high-dimensional data, microarray data, conditional independence structure, sparsity
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Sensitivity and Specificity, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Artifacts, 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