The more you test, the more you find: The smallest <i>P</i>‐values become increasingly enriched with real findings as more tests are conducted
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing accessibility of data to researchers makes it possible to conduct massive amounts of statistical testing. Rather than follow specific scientific hypotheses with statistical analysis, researchers can now test many possible relationships and let statistics generate hypotheses for them. The field of genetic epidemiology is an illustrative case, where testing of candidate genetic variants for association with an outcome has been replaced by agnostic screening of the entire genome. Poor replication rates of candidate gene studies have improved dramatically with the increase in genomic coverage, due to factors such as adoption of better statistical practices and availability of larger sample sizes. Here, we suggest that another important factor behind the improved replicability of genome-wide scans is an increase in the amount of statistical testing itself. We show that an increase in the number of tested hypotheses increases the proportion of true associations among the variants with the smallest P-values. We develop statistical theory to quantify how the expected proportion of genuine signals (EPGS) among top hits depends on the number of tests. This enrichment of top hits by real findings holds regardless of whether genome-wide statistical significance has been reached in a study. Moreover, if we consider only those "failed" studies that produce no statistically significant results, the same enrichment phenomenon takes place: the proportion of true associations among top hits grows with the number of tests. The enrichment occurs even if the true signals are encountered at the logarithmically decreasing rate with the additional testing.
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 | 0.065 | 0.346 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".