Weighted Multiple Testing Correction for Correlated Binary Endpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple binary endpoints often occur in clinical trials and are usually correlated. Many multiple testing adjustment methods have been proposed to control familywise type I error rates. However, most of them disregard the correlation among the endpoints, for example, the commonly used Bonferroni correction, Bonferroni fixed-sequence (BFS) procedure, and its extension, the alpha-exhaustive fallback (AEF). Extending BFS by taking into account correlations among endpoints, Huque and Alosh proposed a flexible fixed-sequence (FFS) testing method, but this FFS method faces computational difficulty when there are four or more endpoints and the power of the first hypothesis does not depend on the correlations among endpoints. In dealing with these issues, Xie proposed a weighted multiple testing correction (WMTC) for correlated continuous endpoints and showed that the proposed method can easily handle hundreds of endpoints by using the R package and has higher power for testing the first hypothesis compared with the FFS and AEF methods. Since WMTC depends on the joint distribution of the endpoints, it is not clear whether WMTC still keeps those advantages when correlated binary endpoints are used. In this article, we evaluated the statistical power of WMTC method for correlated binary endpoints in comparison with the FFS, the AEF, the prospective alpha allocation scheme (PAAS), and the weighted Holm-Bonferroni methods. Furthermore the WMTC method and others are illustrated on a real dataset examining the circumstance of homicide in New York City.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".