Simple estimators of false discovery rates given as few as one or two p-values without strong parametric assumptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple comparison procedures that control a family-wise error rate or false discovery rate provide an achieved error rate as the adjusted p-value or q-value for each hypothesis tested. However, since achieved error rates are not understood as probabilities that the null hypotheses are true, empirical Bayes methods have been employed to estimate such posterior probabilities, called local false discovery rates (LFDRs) to emphasize that their priors are unknown and of the frequency type. The main approaches to LFDR estimation, relying either on fully parametric models to maximize likelihood or on the presence of enough hypotheses for nonparametric density estimation, lack the simplicity and generality of adjusted p-values. To begin filling the gap, this paper introduces simple methods of LFDR estimation with proven asymptotic conservatism without assuming the parameter distribution is in a parametric family. Simulations indicate that they remain conservative even for very small numbers of hypotheses. One of the proposed procedures enables interpreting the original FDR control rule in terms of LFDR estimation, thereby facilitating practical use of the former. The most conservative of the new procedures is applied to measured abundance levels of 20 proteins.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.090 | 0.345 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".