Some Results on False Discovery Rate in Stepwise multiple testing procedures

2002

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3eeb4ebf8df49c48c779ebbdc7878290f21e56ca

Citations in the corpus

• On the Benjamini-Hochberg method (2006, unknown): “Setting k = 1 at each step of the argument yields what is perhaps the simplest and most elementary available proof of the Benjamini–Hochberg theorem; Sarkar [15] gives a proof using similar ideas in a more general setting, and Storey, Taylor and Siegmund [19] give another simple proof based on the o”
• The positive false discovery rate: a Bayesian interpretation and the q-value (2003, unknown): “[See also Sarkar (2002).]”
• Covariate‐assisted ranking and screening for large‐scale two‐sample inference (2019, unknown): “, 2005), the average power (Efron, 2007) and false non-discovery or false negative rate (Genovese and Wasserman, 2002; Sarkar, 2002).”
• Balanced Control of Generalized Error Rates (2010, unknown): “Additional methods that control the FDR are given in [2, 3, 32] and [35], among others.”
• A comparison of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with some Bayesian rules for multiple testing (2008, unknown): “Further references to Bayesian multiple testing procedures as well as a novel Bayesian stepwise multiple testing procedure can be found in Chen and Sarkar [5].”
• Two simple sufficient conditions for FDR control (2008, unknown): “This approach is first used to show that several well-known results on FDR control (mainly concerning step-up or step-down procedures based on a linear rejection function) are recovered in a synthetic way (e.g., results of Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995, 1997; Benjamini and Yekutieli, 2001; Sarkar, 20”
• Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate (2006, unknown): “Procedures are being developed for specific settings (Troendle, 1999), and the applicability of existing procedures are being studied (Sarkar, 2002).”
• Adapting to unknown sparsity by controlling the false discovery rate (2005, unknown): “The FDR-controlling property of the step-up procedure under positive dependence has been established in Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001), and similar results were derived for the step-down version in Sarkar (2002).”
• To How Many Simultaneous Hypothesis Tests Can Normal, Student's t or Bootstrap Calibration Be Applied? (2006, unknown): “Examples in the latter setting have been given by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001), Sarkar (2002, 2006), Dudoit, Shaffer, and Boldrick (2003), Donoho and Jin (2004), Efron (2004), Genovese and Wasserman (2004), Storey, Taylor, and Siegmund (2004), Lehmann and Romano (2005), and Lehmann, Romano, and…”
• Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review (2003, unknown): “See Sakar [15, 16] for a more detailed overview of recent developments in multiple testing and the interaction between FDR and FWE methods.”
• Control of generalized error rates in multiple testing (2007, unknown): “Additional methods that control the FDR are given in [2] and [30].”
• STEPUP PROCEDURES CONTROLLING GENERALIZED FWER AND GENERALIZED FDR (2007, unknown): “1 reduces to the result establishing the usual FDR controlling property of the BH procedure; see [2, 15].”
• ... and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns (2013, unknown): “Appendix B A Bayesian Approach to Multiple Tests The following framework is adopted from Scott and Berger (2006) and highlights the key issues in Bayesian multiple hypothesis testing.”
• Some Results on the Control of the False Discovery Rate under Dependence (2007, unknown): “…have been made to generalize the methods under dependence (Yekutieli & Benjamini, 1999; Benjamini & Yekutieli, 2001; Pollard & van der Laan, 2002; Sarkar, 2002; Storey, 2003, etc.); by verifying procedures developed under independence of test statistics to work under certain dependence…”
• Optimal weighting for false discovery rate control (2008, unknown): “To our knowledge, while the two first points above are widely studied (e.g. building FDR controlling procedures, see e.g. Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001); Storey (2002); Sarkar (2002))), the last point is most of the time evaluated with simulations, without a full theoretical support.”
• Estimation of False Discovery Proportion with Unknown Dependence (2013, unknown): “t statistics satisfy a theoretical dependence structure (positive regression dependence on subsets, PRDS). Extension to a generalized stepwise multiple testing procedure under PRDS has been proved by Sarkar (2002). Later Storey, Taylor & Siegmund (2004) also showed that Storey’s procedure can co”
• Exceedance Control of the False Discovery Proportion (2006, unknown): “…much attention (see Benjamini and Yekutieli 2001; Efron, Tibshirani, and Storey 2001; Finner, and Roters 2002; Genovese and Wasserman 2002, 2004; Korn, Troendle, McShane, and Simon 2004; Romano and Lehmann 2005; Sarkar 2002; Somerville 2004; Storey 2002, 2003; Storey, Taylor, and Siegmund 2004).”
• On stepdown control of the false discovery proportion (2006, unknown): “It is related to Lemma 2.1 of Sarkar [13].”
• False Discovery Control for Random Fields (2004, unknown): “The false nondiscovery proportion (FNP) was introduced independently by Genovese and Wasserman (2004) and by Sarkar (2002b) as the analog of power in the FDR context.”