The optimal discovery procedure: a new approach to simultaneous significance testing

By John D. Storey. 2007

230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b52a1d1f2d947f01df07c3d1e302aba4a988543c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Asymptotic Properties of Bayes Risk of a General Class of Shrinkage Priors in Multiple Hypothesis Testing Under Sparsity (2013, methodology): “Empirical Bayes approaches using the two-groups formulation have been considered, for example, in Efron (2004, 2008), Storey (2007) and Bogdan et al. (2008), just to name a few.”
Covariate powered cross‐weighted multiple testing (2017, background): “ever, the mresulting p-values for the individual tests are in general not able to capture how one should weigh the hypotheses relative to each other to arrive at an optimal multiple testing protocol (Storey, 2007). The consequence is that information irrelevant for single hypothesis testing can be e”
Large‐scale multiple testing under dependence (2009, background): “Storey (2007) considered an optimal discovery procedure, which maximizes the expected number of true positive results subject to a constraint on the expected number of false positive results.”
Optimal weighting for false discovery rate control (2008, background): “Only few works have studied rigorously the optimality of certain classes of multiple testing procedures (see Lehmann et al. (2005); Wasserman and Roeder (2006); Rubin et al. (2006); Storey (2007); Finner et al. (2009)).”
The Bayes oracle and asymptotic optimality of multiple testing procedures under sparsity (2010, methodology): “The oracle procedure proposed in [41] maximizes the expected number of true positives where the expected number of false positives is kept fixed.”
Adaptive FDR control under independence and dependence (2007, background): “…is unknown though, one can hope to estimate, implicitly or explicitly, the alternate distribution from the observed data, and consequently approximate the optimal test statistics (Sun and Cai, 2007 proposed an asymptotically consistent approach to this end; see also Spjøtvoll, 1972, Storey, 2007).”
Distribution-free Multiple Testing (2016, background): “Most other publications that discuss oracle bounds, such as [5, 16, 24, 28, 29], operate in a setting where the statistics have the same null distribution and the same alternative distribution, and consider an oracle that provides these two distributions together with the number of false null hypoth”
A comparison of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with some Bayesian rules for multiple testing (2008, methodology): “Theorem 1 of Storey [30] states that in case when individual test statistics are generated by the two-component mixture model, like in our setting, pFDR = BFDR.”
Large-scale inference (2010, methodology): “Storey (2007) suggests maximizing ETP as a function of EFP.”
De novo identification of differentially methylated regions in the human genome (2015, methodology): “Very similarly, the P values from Bumphunter regions are the minimum probe FDRs at which the associated area may be called significant, but Storey’s optimal discovery procedure [51] is used as a correction routine instead.”
Proportion of non‐zero normal means: universal oracle equivalences and uniformly consistent estimators (2008, methodology): “In this example, based on 15 patients diagnosed with breast cancer (7 with the BRCA1 mutation and 8 with the BRCA2 mutation), microarray data were generated for the same set of 3226 genes.”
A Factor Model Approach to Multiple Testing Under Dependence (2009, methodology): “As mentioned by Storey (2007), such an interest is mainly explained by the need to account for the regulatory network structure within sets of genes in order to give more insight into decision rules.”