[R] FDR analyses: minimum number of features
Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen
kjetil at acelerate.com
Thu Sep 22 04:45:11 CEST 2005
Spencer Graves wrote:
> Two thoughts on this:
> 1. Your FDR (Not Franklin Delano Roosevelt) sounds like another name
>for Type I error rate.
It is certainly not the same as type I error rate. Type I error rate is
the proportion of true
nulls which are rejected, while the FDR is the proportion of rejected
which really are true nulls!
To me FDR seems like a more promising avenue to multiple testing than
"familywise error rate". Who knows what is a family?
> The definition of "reasonably reliable FDRs"
>would seem to relate to the status of the literature on this issue among
>researchers in genotyping. As more reports of FRDs in genotyping are
>published, I would expect that methodology for estimation and the
>standard for accuracy would similarly evolve.
> 2. Have you tried the Bioconductor (www.bioconductor.org/)
>listserve? They might be able to say something more useful than a
>general list like this.
> spencer graves
>Dupont, William wrote:
>>We are planning a genotyping study to be analyzed using false discovery
>>rates (FDRs) (See Storey and Tibshirani PNAS 2003; 100:9440-5). I am
>>interested in learning if there is any consensus as to how many
>>features (ie. how many P values) need to be studied before reasonably
>>reliable FDRs can be derived. Does anyone know of a citation where
>>this is discussed?
>>William D. Dupont phone: 615-343-4100 URL
>>R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
>>PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Peace is the most effective weapon of mass construction.
-- Mahdi Elmandjra
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
More information about the R-help