A practical guide to methods controlling false discoveries in computational biology
By Keegan Korthauer, Patrick K. Kimes, Claire Duvallet, Alejandro Reyes, Ayshwarya Subramanian, Mingxiang Teng, Chinmay J. Shukla, Eric J. Alm, Stephanie C. Hicks. Genome Biology, 2018
388 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In high-throughput studies, hundreds to millions of hypotheses are typically tested. Statistical methods that control the false discovery rate (FDR) have emerged as popular and powerful tools for error rate control. While classic FDR methods use only p values as input, more modern FDR methods have been shown to increase power by incorporating complementary information as informative covariates to prioritize, weight, and group hypotheses. However, there is currently no consensus on how the modern methods compare to one another. We investigate the accuracy, applicability, and ease of use of two classic and six modern FDR-controlling methods by performing a systematic benchmark comparison using simulation studies as well as six case studies in computational biology. Methods that incorporate informative covariates are modestly more powerful than classic approaches, and do not underperform classic approaches, even when the covariate is completely uninformative. The majority of methods are successful at controlling the FDR, with the exception of two modern methods under certain settings. Furthermore, we find that the improvement of the modern FDR methods over the classic methods increases with the informativeness of the covariate, total number of hypothesis tests, and proportion of truly non-null hypotheses. Modern FDR methods that use an informative covariate provide advantages over classic FDR-controlling procedures, with the relative gain dependent on the application and informativeness of available covariates. We present our findings as a practical guide and provide recommendations to aid researchers in their choice of methods to correct for false discoveries.
Subfields: Biophysics, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8cf8756afae6101ef56c5ea882994380b2b810a9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Biophysics
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Covariate powered cross‐weighted multiple testing (2017, background): “However, AdaPT has no theoretical guarantees outside of full p-value independence, is tied to FDR control and suffers from a large variance of the false discovery proportion [Korthauer et al., 2019].”