Articles |
A family of Bayes multiple testing procedures
Department of Statistics, and Biostatistics, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8019, U.S.A. artcohen{at}rci.rutgers.edu sackrowi{at}rci.rutgers.edu minyaxu{at}eden.rutgers.edu buyske{at}stat.rutgers.edu
Received for publication 1 July 2007. Revision received 1 September 2007.
Under the model of independent test statistics, we propose a two-parameter family of Bayes multiple testing procedures. The two parameters can be viewed as tuning parameters. Using the Benjamini–Hochberg step-up procedure for controlling false discovery rate as a baseline for conservativeness, we choose the tuning parameters to compromise between the operating characteristics of that procedure and a less conservative procedure that focuses on alternatives that a priori might be considered likely or meaningful. The Bayes procedures do not have the theoretical and practical shortcomings of the popular stepwise procedures. In terms of the number of mistakes, simulations for two examples indicate that over a large segment of the parameter space, the Bayes procedure is preferable to the step-up procedure. Another desirable feature of the procedures is that they are computationally feasible for any number of hypotheses.
Key Words: False discovery rate • Familywise error rate • Genomics • Noncentral chi-squared density • Noncentral t density • Step-down procedure • Step-up procedure
References
-
Abramovich F., Benjamini Y., Donoho D., Johnstone I. M. Adapting to known sparsity by controlling the false discovery rate. Ann. Statist. (2006) 34:584–653.[CrossRef]
Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate. A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Statist. Soc. B (1995) 57:289–300.
Benjamini Y., Krieger A. M., Yekutieli D. Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika (2006) 93:491–507.
Cohen A., Kolassa J., Sackrowitz H. B. A smooth version of the step-up procedure for multiple tests of hypotheses. J. Statist. Plan. Infer. (2007) 137:3352–60.[CrossRef]
Cohen A., Sackrowitz H. B. Decision theory results for vector risks with applications. Statist. Decis. (1984) (Suppl. 1):159–76.
Cohen A., Sackrowitz H. B. Characterization of Bayes procedures for multiple endpoint problems and inadmissibility of the step-up procedure. Ann. Statist. (2005) 33:145–58.[CrossRef]
Cohen A., Sackrowitz H. B. More on the inadmissibility of step-up. J. Mult. Anal. (2007) 98:481–92.[CrossRef]
Cohen A., Sackrowitz H. B. Multiple testing of two-sided alternatives with dependent data. Statist. Sinica (2008).
Donoho D., Jin J. Higher criticism for detecting sparse heterogeneous mixtures. Ann. Statist. (2004) 32:962–94.[CrossRef]
Dudoit S., Shaffer J. P., Boldrick J. C. Multiple hypothesis testing in microarray experiments. Statist. Sci. (2003) 18:71–103.[CrossRef]
Ferreira J. A., Zwinderman A. H. On the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Ann. Statist. (2006) 34:1827–49.[CrossRef]
Finner H., Strassburger K. The partitioning principle: a powerful tool in multiple decision theory. Ann. Statist. (2002) 30:1194–213.[CrossRef]
Hedenfalk I., Duggan D., Chen Y. D., Rademacher M., Bittiner M., Simon R., Meltzer P., Gustaerson B., Estehler M., Kallioniemi O. P., Wifond B., Borg A., Trent J. Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. (2001) 344:539–48.
Hochberg Y., Tamhane A. C. Multiple Comparison Procedures (1987) New York: Wiley.
Ishwaran H., Rao J. S. Detecting differentially expressed genes in microarrays using Bayes model selection. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. (2003) 98:438–55.[CrossRef][ISI]
Jin J., Cai T. T. Estimating the null and the proportion of nonnull effects in large-scale multiple comparisons. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. (2007) 102:495–506.[CrossRef][ISI]
Kim D. D. Y., Kim T. T. Y., Walsh T., Kobuyashu Y., Matise T. C., Buyske S., Gabriel A. Widespread rna editing of embedded Alu elements in human transcription. Genome Res. (2004) 14:1719–25.
Lehmann E. L., Romano J. P. Testing Statistical Hypotheses (2005) 3rd ed. New York: Springer.
Marcus R., Peritz E., Gabriel K. R. On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance. Biometrika (1976) 63:655–60.
Meinshausen N., Rice J. Estimating the proportion of false null hypotheses among a large number of independently tested hypotheses. Ann. Statist. (2006) 34:373–93.[CrossRef]
Sarkar S. False discovery and false non-discovery rates in single-step multiple testing procedures. Ann. Statist. (2006) 34:394–415.[CrossRef]
Storey J. D. The positive false discovery rate: a Bayesian interpretation and the q-value. Ann. Statist. (2003) 31:2013–35.[CrossRef]
Storey J. D., Tibshirani R. Statistical significance for genome-wide studies. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (2003) 100:9440–5.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||