Literature DB >> 24347668

A Note on Comparing the Power of Test Statistics at Low Significance Levels.

Nathan Morris1, Robert Elston1.   

Abstract

It is an obvious fact that the power of a test statistic is dependent upon the significance (alpha) level at which the test is performed. It is perhaps a less obvious fact that the relative performance of two statistics in terms of power is also a function of the alpha level. Through numerous personal discussions, we have noted that even some competent statisticians have the mistaken intuition that relative power comparisons at traditional levels such as α = 0.05 will be roughly similar to relative power comparisons at very low levels, such as the level α = 5 × 10-8, which is commonly used in genome-wide association studies. In this brief note, we demonstrate that this notion is in fact quite wrong, especially with respect to comparing tests with differing degrees of freedom. In fact, at very low alpha levels the cost of additional degrees of freedom is often comparatively low. Thus we recommend that statisticians exercise caution when interpreting the results of power comparison studies which use alpha levels that will not be used in practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Power; Small Significance Levels

Year:  2011        PMID: 24347668      PMCID: PMC3859431          DOI: 10.1198/tast.2011.10117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Stat        ISSN: 0003-1305            Impact factor:   8.710


  4 in total

Review 1.  Genome-wide association studies: theoretical and practical concerns.

Authors:  William Y S Wang; Bryan J Barratt; David G Clayton; John A Todd
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Comparing apples and oranges: equating the power of case-control and quantitative trait association studies.

Authors:  Jian Yang; Naomi R Wray; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.135

3.  How Accurate are the Extremely Small P-values Used in Genomic Research: An Evaluation of Numerical Libraries.

Authors:  Sai Santosh Bangalore; Jelai Wang; David B Allison
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 1.681

4.  Single-marker and two-marker association tests for unphased case-control genotype data, with a power comparison.

Authors:  Sulgi Kim; Nathan J Morris; Sungho Won; Robert C Elston
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.135

  4 in total
  5 in total

1.  Power of single- vs. multi-marker tests of association.

Authors:  Xuefeng Wang; Nathan J Morris; Daniel J Schaid; Robert C Elston
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 2.135

2.  Multiancestry Study of Gene-Lifestyle Interactions for Cardiovascular Traits in 610 475 Individuals From 124 Cohorts: Design and Rationale.

Authors:  D C Rao; Yun J Sung; Thomas W Winkler; Karen Schwander; Ingrid Borecki; L Adrienne Cupples; W James Gauderman; Kenneth Rice; Patricia B Munroe; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2017-06

3.  Gene-smoking interactions identify several novel blood pressure loci in the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Yun J Sung; Lisa de Las Fuentes; Karen L Schwander; Jeannette Simino; Dabeeru C Rao
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 2.689

4.  Generalized estimating equations for genome-wide association studies using longitudinal phenotype data.

Authors:  Colleen M Sitlani; Kenneth M Rice; Thomas Lumley; Barbara McKnight; L Adrienne Cupples; Christy L Avery; Raymond Noordam; Bruno H C Stricker; Eric A Whitsel; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Testing for direct genetic effects using a screening step in family-based association studies.

Authors:  Sharon M Lutz; Stijn Vansteelandt; Christoph Lange
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 4.599

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.