4.6 Article

Estimating False Discovery Proportion Under Arbitrary Covariance Dependence

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 107, Issue 499, Pages 1019-1035

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2012.720478

Keywords

Arbitrary dependence structure; False discovery rate; Genome-wide association studies; High-dimensional inference; Multiple hypothesis testing

Funding

  1. NSF [DMS-0704337, DMS-0714554]
  2. NIH [R01-GM072611]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1206464] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple hypothesis testing is a fundamental problem in high-dimensional inference, with wide applications in many scientific fields. In genome-wide association studies, tens of thousands of tests are performed simultaneously to find if any single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with some traits and those tests are correlated. When test statistics are correlated, false discovery control becomes very challenging under arbitrary dependence. In this article, we propose a novel method-based on principal factor approximation-that successfully subtracts the common dependence and weakens significantly the correlation structure, to deal with an arbitrary dependence structure. We derive an approximate expression for false discovery proportion (FDP) in large-scale multiple testing when a common threshold is used and provide a consistent estimate of realized FDP. This result has important applications in controlling false discovery rate and FDP. Our estimate of realized FDP compares favorably with Efron's approach, as demonstrated in the simulated examples. Our approach is further illustrated by some real data applications. We also propose a dependence-adjusted procedure that is more powerful than the fixed-threshold procedure. Supplementary material for this article is available online.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available