MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148357625 · doi:10.1002/sim.4434

Weighted multiple testing correction for correlated tests

2011· article· en· W2148357625 on OpenAlexaff
Changchun Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBonferroni correctionType I and type II errorsMultiple comparisons problemSequence (biology)MathematicsCorrelationStatisticsFalse discovery rateStatistical hypothesis testingNull hypothesisStatistical powerAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtually all clinical trials collect multiple endpoints that are usually correlated. Many methods have been proposed to control the family-wise type I error rate (FWER), but these methods often disregard the correlation among the endpoints, such as the commonly used Bonferroni correction, Holm procedure, Wiens' Bonferroni fixed-sequence (BFS) procedure and its extension, and the alpha-exhaustive fallback (AEF). Huque and Alosh proposed a flexible fixed-sequence (FFS) testing method, which extended the BFS method by taking into account correlations among endpoints. However, the FFS method faces a computational difficulty when there are four or more endpoints. Similar to the BFS procedure, the FFS method requires the prespecified testing sequence and the type I error rate used for first endpoint in the sequence (usually the most important endpoint) cannot be adjusted for the correlation among the endpoints or from the rejection of other null hypotheses for other endpoints. Thus, the power for this test is not maximized. In this paper, I present a weighted multiple testing correction for correlated tests. By using the package 'mvtnorm' in R, the proposed method can handle up to a thousand endpoints. Simulations show that the proposed method shares the advantage of the FFS and the AEF methods (having high power for the second or later hypotheses in the testing sequence) and has higher power for testing the first hypothesis than the FFS and the AEF methods. The proposed method has higher power for each individual hypothesis than the weighted Holm procedure, especially when the correlation between endpoints is high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.487
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.487
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.625
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.074 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207