Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2004 · Vol. 96(6) · pp. 434–442
Sholom WacholderStephen J. ChanockMontserrat García‐ClosasLaure El ghormliNathaniel Rothman

Abstract

Too many reports of associations between genetic variants and common cancer sites and other complex diseases are false positives. A major reason for this unfortunate situation is the strategy of declaring statistical significance based on a P value alone, particularly, any P value below.05. The false positive report probability (FPRP), the probability of no true association between a genetic variant and disease given a statistically significant finding, depends not only on the observed P value but also on both the prior probability that the association between the genetic variant and the disease is real and the statistical power of the test. In this commentary, we show how to assess the FPRP and how to use it to decide whether a finding is deserving of attention or "noteworthy." We show how this approach can lead to improvements in the design, analysis, and interpretation of molecular epidemiology studies. Our proposal can help investigators, editors, and readers of research articles to protect themselves from overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are not likely to signify a true association. An FPRP-based criterion for deciding whether to call a finding noteworthy formalizes the process already used informally by investigators--that is, tempering enthusiasm for remarkable study findings with considerations of plausibility.

Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFalse positive paradoxEpidemiologyDiseaseMedicineStatistical powerValue (mathematics)p-valueStatistical hypothesis testingStatisticsMathematics

MeSH terms

Analysis of VarianceBayes TheoremFalse Positive ReactionsHaplotypesHumansMathematical ComputingGenetic VariationObserver VariationConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicConfidence IntervalsLikelihood FunctionsOdds RatioMolecular EpidemiologySample SizeRisk Assessment
Citations
1,776
FWCI
66.02
field-weighted impact
References
37
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
PLoS Medicine · 2005 · 10,338 citations
Genome-wide association studies for common diseases and complex traits
Nature Reviews Genetics · 2005 · 2,867 citations
Pathway-Based Approaches for Analysis of Genomewide Association Studies
The American Journal of Human Genetics · 2007 · 866 citations
CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2017 · 1,958 citations
References
Belief in the law of small numbers.
Psychological Bulletin · 1971 · 3,242 citations
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 1995 · 106,483 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.

Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies · Scinovex