Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Optimal Sample Size for Multiple Testing: The Case of Gene Expression Microarrays

Müller, Peter, Parmigiani, Giovanni, Robert, Christian, Rousseau, Judith·2004·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

We consider the choice of an optimal sample size for multiple-comparison problems. The motivating application is the choice of the number of microarray experiments to be carried out when learning about differential gene expression. However, the approach is valid in any application that involves multiple comparisons in a large number of hypothesis tests. We discuss two decision problems in the context of this setup: the sample size selection and the decision about the multiple comparisons. We adopt a decision-theoretic approach, using loss functions that combine the competing goals of discovering as many differentially expressed genes as possible, while keeping the number of false discoveries manageable. For consistency, we use the same loss function for both decisions. The decision rule that emerges for the multiple-comparison problem takes the exact form of the rules proposed in the recent literature to control the posterior expected falsediscovery rate. For the sample size selection, we combine the expected utility argument with an additional sensitivity analysis, reporting the conditional expected utilities and conditioning on assumed levels of the true differential expression. We recognize the resulting diagnostic as a form of statistical power facilitating interpretation and communication. As a sampling model for observed gene expression densities across genes and arrays, we use a variation of a hierarchical gamma/gamma model. But the discussion of the decision problem is independent of the chosen probability model. The approach is valid for any model that includes positive prior probabilities for the null hypotheses in the multiple comparisons and that allows for efficient marginal and posterior simulation, possibly by dependent Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation.

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 · 10.1198/016214504000001646

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Müller, P., Parmigiani, G., Robert, C., & Rousseau, J.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
2004-12
Volume
99
Issue
468
Pages
990-1001
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2059238813
Cited by
244
References
0
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Optimal Sample Size for Multiple Testing: The Case of Gene Expression Microarrays. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1198/016214504000001646
The paper
Müller, P., Parmigiani, G., Robert, C., & Rousseau, J. (2004). Optimal Sample Size for Multiple Testing: The Case of Gene Expression Microarrays. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001646

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.