Literature DB >> 12112249

Empirical bayes methods and false discovery rates for microarrays.

Bradley Efron1, Robert Tibshirani.   

Abstract

In a classic two-sample problem, one might use Wilcoxon's statistic to test for a difference between treatment and control subjects. The analogous microarray experiment yields thousands of Wilcoxon statistics, one for each gene on the array, and confronts the statistician with a difficult simultaneous inference situation. We will discuss two inferential approaches to this problem: an empirical Bayes method that requires very little a priori Bayesian modeling, and the frequentist method of "false discovery rates" proposed by Benjamini and Hochberg in 1995. It turns out that the two methods are closely related and can be used together to produce sensible simultaneous inferences. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12112249     DOI: 10.1002/gepi.1124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Epidemiol        ISSN: 0741-0395            Impact factor:   2.135


  187 in total

1.  False Discovery Rate Control With Groups.

Authors:  James X Hu; Hongyu Zhao; Harrison H Zhou
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 5.033

2.  Oxidative stress status accompanying diabetic bladder cystopathy results in the activation of protein degradation pathways.

Authors:  Nirmala D Kanika; Jinsook Chang; Yuehong Tong; Scott Tiplitsky; Juan Lin; Elizabeth Yohannes; Moses Tar; Mark Chance; George J Christ; Arnold Melman; Kelvin D Davies
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Statistical issues and methods for meta-analysis of microarray data: a case study in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Debashis Ghosh; Terrence R Barette; Dan Rhodes; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Funct Integr Genomics       Date:  2003-07-22       Impact factor: 3.410

4.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies.

Authors:  John D Storey; Robert Tibshirani
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-07-25       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Comparative analysis of dioxin response elements in human, mouse and rat genomic sequences.

Authors:  Y V Sun; D R Boverhof; L D Burgoon; M R Fielden; T R Zacharewski
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-08-24       Impact factor: 16.971

6.  Extensive sex-specific nonadditivity of gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Greg Gibson; Rebecca Riley-Berger; Larry Harshman; Artyom Kopp; Scott Vacha; Sergey Nuzhdin; Marta Wayne
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies.

Authors:  Sholom Wacholder; Stephen Chanock; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Laure El Ghormli; Nathaniel Rothman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Generic comparison of protein inference engines.

Authors:  Manfred Claassen; Lukas Reiter; Michael O Hengartner; Joachim M Buhmann; Ruedi Aebersold
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 5.911

9.  Quantitative proteome profiling of lymph node-positive vs. -negative colorectal carcinomas pinpoints MX1 as a marker for lymph node metastasis.

Authors:  Roland S Croner; Michael Stürzl; Tilman T Rau; Gergana Metodieva; Carol I Geppert; Elisabeth Naschberger; Berthold Lausen; Metodi V Metodiev
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Empirical evaluation of consistency and accuracy of methods to detect differentially expressed genes based on microarray data.

Authors:  Dake Yang; Rudolph S Parrish; Guy N Brock
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 4.589

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.