False discovery rate, sensitivity and sample size for microarray studies

363Citations
Citations of this article
506Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Motivation: In microarray data studies most researchers are keenly aware of the potentially high rate of false positives and the need to control it. One key statistical shift is the move away from the well-known P-value to false discovery rate (FDR). Less discussion perhaps has been spent on the sensitivity or the associated false negative rate (FNR). The purpose of this paper is to explain in simple ways why the shift from P-value to FDR for statistical assessment of microarray data is necessary, to elucidate the determining factors of FDR and, for a two-sample comparative study, to discuss its control via sample size at the design stage. Results: We use a mixture model, involving differentially expressed (DE) and non-DE genes, that captures the most common problem of finding DE genes. Factors determining FDR are (1) the proportion of truly differentially expressed genes, (2) the distribution of the true differences, (3) measurement variability and (4) sample size. Many current small microarray studies are plagued with large FDR, but controlling FDR alone can lead to unacceptably large FNR. In evaluating a design of a microarray study, sensitivity or FNR curves should be computed routinely together with FDR curves. Under certain assumptions, the FDR and FNR curves coincide, thus simplifying the choice of sample size for controlling the FDR and FNR jointly. © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

References Powered by Scopus

Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response

10037Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Statistical significance for genomewide studies

7708Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A direct approach to false discovery rates

4238Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation

11269Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Microarray data analysis: From disarray to consolidation and consensus

1040Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Genetic prognostic and predictive markers in colorectal cancer

563Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pawitan, Y., Michiels, S., Koscielny, S., Gusnanto, A., & Ploner, A. (2005). False discovery rate, sensitivity and sample size for microarray studies. Bioinformatics, 21(13), 3017–3024. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti448

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 198

47%

Researcher 150

36%

Professor / Associate Prof. 51

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 21

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 219

61%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 56

16%

Medicine and Dentistry 51

14%

Computer Science 34

9%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free