Response to Letter to the Editor by Philip Good on To Permute or Not to Permute

V. Calian, J. Hsu
{"title":"Response to Letter to the Editor by Philip Good on To Permute or Not to Permute","authors":"V. Calian, J. Hsu","doi":"10.1093/bioinformatics/btq313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In current practice, such as GWAS (genome-wide association studies), permutation is often applied to multiple testing for association between large number of features [e.g. single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] and phenotypes (Hahn et al., 2008). Inferring that there is a difference between the phenotypic groups X and Y in some of the features is not very useful. One has to know for which features there is a difference. Exchangeability, a necessary condition for the validity of permutation tests, might be applicable if subjects are assigned randomly to treatments and the treatment is totally innocuous. However, instead of randomized, controlled clinical trials, bioinformatics discovery studies are mostly retrospective. Huang et al. (2006) gives examples of how permutation testing may fail to control Type I error when exchangeability does not hold. Equally important, Theorem 2.2 of this paper gives a succinct condition on when permutation testing is valid, even when exchangeability fails. This condition is as follows. In testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in an entire set of features between groups X and Y , when the sample sizes are equal, even if the data distributions FX and FY have unequal even order cumulants, so long as they have equal odd higher order (third order and higher) cumulants, permutation testing controls Type I error rate. This precise condition is the basis for the subsequent papers Xu and Hsu (2007) and Calian et al. (2008) to uncover the Marginal-Determines-the Joint (MDJ) distribution condition needed for permutation multiple testing to control multiple testing error rates. Regardless of sample sizes, permutation multiple tests may not control false discoveries of which features are predictive of phenotype, unless it is assumed that the joint distributions of nonpredictive features are identical between the X and Y groups. Checking this assumption on the joint distribution using the data","PeriodicalId":90576,"journal":{"name":"Journal of bioinformatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of bioinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In current practice, such as GWAS (genome-wide association studies), permutation is often applied to multiple testing for association between large number of features [e.g. single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] and phenotypes (Hahn et al., 2008). Inferring that there is a difference between the phenotypic groups X and Y in some of the features is not very useful. One has to know for which features there is a difference. Exchangeability, a necessary condition for the validity of permutation tests, might be applicable if subjects are assigned randomly to treatments and the treatment is totally innocuous. However, instead of randomized, controlled clinical trials, bioinformatics discovery studies are mostly retrospective. Huang et al. (2006) gives examples of how permutation testing may fail to control Type I error when exchangeability does not hold. Equally important, Theorem 2.2 of this paper gives a succinct condition on when permutation testing is valid, even when exchangeability fails. This condition is as follows. In testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in an entire set of features between groups X and Y , when the sample sizes are equal, even if the data distributions FX and FY have unequal even order cumulants, so long as they have equal odd higher order (third order and higher) cumulants, permutation testing controls Type I error rate. This precise condition is the basis for the subsequent papers Xu and Hsu (2007) and Calian et al. (2008) to uncover the Marginal-Determines-the Joint (MDJ) distribution condition needed for permutation multiple testing to control multiple testing error rates. Regardless of sample sizes, permutation multiple tests may not control false discoveries of which features are predictive of phenotype, unless it is assumed that the joint distributions of nonpredictive features are identical between the X and Y groups. Checking this assumption on the joint distribution using the data
对菲利普·古德致编辑的信的回应,关于是否要排位
在当前的实践中,例如GWAS(全基因组关联研究),排列通常用于对大量特征[例如单核苷酸多态性(snp)]与表型之间的关联进行多重测试(Hahn等人,2008)。推断表型组X和Y在某些特征上存在差异并不是很有用。我们必须知道哪些特征是不同的。互换性是排列试验有效性的必要条件,如果受试者被随机分配到治疗中,并且治疗是完全无害的,则可能适用。然而,生物信息学发现研究大多是回顾性的,而不是随机对照临床试验。Huang等人(2006)举例说明,当互换性不成立时,排列测试可能无法控制I型错误。同样重要的是,本文的定理2.2给出了一个简单的条件,即当互换性失效时,置换检验是有效的。这个条件如下。当样本大小相等时,即使数据分布FX和FY具有不等的偶数阶累积量,只要它们具有相等的奇数高阶(三阶和更高)累积量,在检验零假设时,置换检验控制类型I错误率。这一精确条件是后续论文Xu and Hsu(2007)和Calian et al.(2008)的基础,揭示了置换多重检验控制多重检验错误率所需的边际决定-联合(MDJ)分布条件。无论样本量如何,排列多重检验可能无法控制哪些特征可预测表型的错误发现,除非假设非预测特征的联合分布在X组和Y组之间是相同的。用数据在联合分布上检验这个假设
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信