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

Clicks: 1
ID: 291450
2004
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #291 of 333 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 333 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
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.
Reference Key
openalex_W2102945991 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sholom Wacholder, Stephen J. Chanock, Montserrat García‐Closas, Laure El ghormli, Nathaniel Rothman
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 2004
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djh075
URL
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-pdf/96/6/434/34001934/0075.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.