ASSOCIATON TESTS THAT ACCOMMODATE GENOTYPING ERRORS

High-throughput SNP arrays provide estimates of genotypes for up to one million loci, often used in genome-wide association studies. While these estimates are typically very accurate, genotyping errors do occur, which can influence in particular the most extreme test statistics and p-values. Estimates for the genotype uncertainties are also available, although typically ignored. In this manuscript, we develop a framework to incorporate these genotype uncertainties in case-control studies for any genetic model. We verify that using the assumption of a “local alternative” in the score test is very reasonable for effect sizes typically seen in SNP association studies, and show that the power of the score test is simply a function of the correlation of the genotype probabilities with the true genotypes. We demonstrate that the power to detect a true association can be substantially increased for difficult to call genotypes, resulting in improved inference in association studies.

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.

GENE SET ENRICHMENT ANALYSIS MADE SIMPLE

Among the many applications of microarray technology, one of the most popular is the identification of genes that are differentially expressed in two conditions. A common statistical approach is to quantify the interest of each gene with a p-value, adjust these p-values for multiple comparisons, chose an appropriate cut-off, and create a list of candidate genes. This approach has been criticized for ignoring biological knowledge regarding how genes work together. Recently a series of methods, that do incorporate biological knowledge, have been proposed. However, many of these methods seem overly complicated. Furthermore, the most popular method, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), is based on a statistical test known for its lack of sensitivity. In this paper we compare the performance of a simple alternative to GSEA.We find that this simple solution clearly outperforms GSEA.We demonstrate this with eight different microarray datasets.

Bayesian Geostatistical Design

This paper describes the use of model-based geostatistics for choosing the optimal set of sampling locations, collectively called the design, for a geostatistical analysis. Two types of design situations are considered. These are retrospective design, which concerns the addition of sampling locations to, or deletion of locations from, an existing design, and prospective design, which consists of choosing optimal positions for a new set of sampling locations. We propose a Bayesian design criterion which focuses on the goal of efficient spatial prediction whilst allowing for the fact that model parameter values are unknown. The results show that in this situation a wide range of inter-point distances should be included in the design, and the widely used regular design is therefore not the optimal choice.