Rediscovery rate estimation for assessing the validation of significant findings in high-throughput studies

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 563-575

  Ganna, Andrea ^a,b   Lee, Donghwan ^c   Ingelsson, Erik ^b   Pawitan, Yudi ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

False discovery rate; Metabolomics; Multiple testing; Rediscovery rate; Statistical validation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; GENE; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDS; VALIDATION STUDY;

GENES; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; SAMPLE SIZE; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84919672097     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbu033     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, et al. Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol 2013;11:e1001609.
2. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoSMed 2005;2:e124.
3. Wadman M. NIH mulls rules for validating key results. Nature 2013;500:14-16.
4. Kraft P, Zeggini E, Ioannidis JP. Replication in genomewide association studies. Stat Sci 2009;24:561-73.
5. Ioannidis JP, Thomas G, Daly MJ. Validating, augmenting and refining genome-wide association signals. NatRevGenet 2009;10:318-29.
6. Editorial. Freely associating. Nat Genet 1999;22:1-2.
7. Hirschhorn JN, Altshuler D. Once and again-issues surrounding replication in genetic association studies. J Clin EndocrinolMetab 2002;87:4438-41.
8. Moonesinghe R, Khoury MJ, Janssens AC. Most published research findings are false-but a little replication goes a long way. PLoSMed 2007;4:e28.
9. Ioannidis JP, Panagiotou OA. Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. JAmMed Assoc 2011;305:2200-10.
10. Low SK, Takahashi A, Cha PC, et al. Genome-wide association study for intracranial aneurysm in the Japanese population identifies three candidate susceptible loci and a functional genetic variant at EDNRA. Hum Mol Genet 2012;21:2102-10.
11. Dick KJ, Nelson CP, Tsaprouni L, et al. DNA methylation and body-mass index: a genome-wide analysis. Lancet 2014; 383:1990-8.
12. Wang-Sattler R, Yu Z, Herder C, et al. Novel biomarkers for pre-diabetes identified by metabolomics. Mol Syst Biol 2012;8:615.
13. Pawitan Y, Murthy KR, Michiels S, et al. Bias in the estimation of false discovery rate in microarray studies. Bioinformatics 2005;21:3865-72.
14. Bogomolov M, Heller R. Discovering findings that replicate from a primary study of high dimension to a follow-up study. JAmStatAssoc 2013;108:1480-92.
15. Pawitan Y, Calza S, Ploner A. Estimation of false discovery proportion under general dependence. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:3025-31.
16. McLachlan G, Peel D. Finite Mixture Models. New York: Wiley, 2000.
17. So HC, Yip BH, Sham PC. Estimating the total number of susceptibility variants underlying complex diseases from genome-wide association studies. PLos One 2010;5:e13898.
18. Park JH, Gail MH, Weinberg CR, et al. Distribution of allele frequencies and effect sizes and their interrelationships for common genetic susceptibility variants. ProcNatlAcad Sci USA 2011;108:18026-31.
19. Lichtenstein P, De Faire U, Floderus B, et al. The Swedish Twin Registry: a unique resource for clinical, epidemiological and genetic studies. J InternMed 2002;252: 184-205.
20. Ganna A, Reilly M, de Faire U, et al. Risk prediction measures for case-cohort and nested case-control designs: an application to cardiovascular disease. AmJ Epidemiol 2012;175: 715-24.
21. Lind L, Fors N, Hall J, et al. A comparison of three different methods to evaluate endothelium-dependent vasodilation in the elderly: the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors (PIVUS) study. Arterioscler ThrombVasc Biol 2005;25:2368-75.
22. Broeckling CD, Heuberger AL, Prenni JE. Large scale nontargeted metabolomic profiling of serum by ultra performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UPLCMS). JVis Exp 2013;14:e50242.
23. Smith CA, Want EJ, O'Maille G, et al. XCMS: processing mass spectrometry data for metabolite profiling using nonlinear peak alignment, matching, and identification. Anal Chem 2006;78:779-87.
24. Ganna A, Fall T, Lee W, et al. A workflow for UPLCMS nontargeted metabolomic profiling in large human population-based studies. bioRxiv 2014. doi.org/10.1101/002782.