Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0805.3008

Multiple tests of association with biological annotation metadata

Sandrine Dudoit·Sündüz Keleş·Mark J. van der Laan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We propose a general and formal statistical framework for multiple tests of association between known fixed features of a genome and unknown parameters of the distribution of variable features of this genome in a population of interest. The known gene-annotation profiles, corresponding to the fixed features of the genome, may concern Gene Ontology (GO) annotation, pathway membership, regulation by particular transcription factors, nucleotide sequences, or protein sequences. The unknown gene-parameter profiles, corresponding to the variable features of the genome, may be, for example, regression coefficients relating possibly censored biological and clinical outcomes to genome-wide transcript levels, DNA copy numbers, and other covariates. A generic question of great interest in current genomic research regards the detection of associations between biological annotation metadata and genome-wide expression measures. This biological question may be translated as the test of multiple hypotheses concerning association measures between gene-annotation profiles and gene-parameter profiles. A general and rigorous formulation of the statistical inference question allows us to apply the multiple hypothesis testing methodology developed in [Multiple Testing Procedures with Applications to Genomics (2008) Springer, New York] and related articles, to control a broad class of Type I error rates, defined as generalized tail probabilities and expected values for arbitrary functions of the numbers of Type I errors and rejected hypotheses. The resampling-based single-step and stepwise multiple testing procedures of [Multiple Testing Procedures with Applications to Genomics (2008) Springer, New York] take into account the joint distribution of the test statistics and provide Type I error control in testing problems involving general data generating distributions (with arbitrary dependence structures among variables), null hypotheses, and test statistics.

Explore related subjects

stat.APstat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sandrine Dudoit, Sündüz Keleş, Mark J. van der Laan. 2008-05-20. Multiple tests of association with biological annotation metadata. https://doi.org/10.1214/193940307000000446

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Relegation, promotion and the components of scoring in water polo

Relegation, not the championship, decides the outcome of many European water polo leagues: one club has won every recent national title in Italy, Spain and Hungary. We make the relegation decision our object of inference. Serie A1 relegates one club for finishing last and a second through a three-match play-out, and we ask at each stage how much can be known and when. Promoted clubs arrive with no top-flight record, so we also compare four ways of setting their prior. These analyses rest on the first Bayesian hierarchical model of water polo, which splits scoring into even-strength, man-up and penalty components, models opportunities and conversions separately, and lets abilities evolve between seasons. Treating the components as independent proves untenable, since they compete for a common budget of possessions. Fitted to a new dataset of 940 matches, the model identifies the directly relegated club from the ninth round, before the league table does, predicts the play-out field better than the table, and shows the play-out itself to be close to a coin toss. Promoted clubs start below the league on every component except drawing exclusions: knowing a club was promoted improves forecasts; knowing how does not.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Geospatial Foundation Models Capture Health-Relevant Dimensions of Place Beyond Conventional Social Risk Indices

Area-based social risk indices summarize residents' socioeconomic conditions but incompletely capture physical features of place that may affect health. We evaluated whether numerical representations of physical place produced by four geospatial foundation model families from 2022 satellite data explained residual variance in tract-level associations between the Area Deprivation Index, Social Deprivation Index, and Social Vulnerability Index with health outcomes. We used LightGBM to predict variables from the American Community Survey and 40 chronic disease and health-behavior outcomes from CDC PLACES across 82,646 census tracts in the contiguous United States, evaluating performance across 10 held-out states. Among survey variables, models were moderately predictive of some variables including housing type (R-squared up to 0.54) but weak for disability, unemployment, and income disparity. For health outcomes, models explained up to 54% of variance left unexplained by social risk indices, with the largest gains for annual checkups, arthritis, and high blood pressure. Mean total variance explained by geospatial foundation models across the 40 health-related outcomes increased from 0.31 in the smallest tract-size decile to 0.39 in the largest. Geospatial foundation models capture health-relevant features of place not represented by conventional social risk indices and may usefully augment them in epidemiological analyses.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Transporting summary measures of relative effects from randomised trials to the treated patient population: an application to breast cancer endocrine therapy

Randomised trials often report relative treatment effects, such as risk ratios and hazard ratios, for trial populations. Clinical decision-making, however, often benefits from estimates of absolute treatment effects in the population eligible for treatment. Trial participants may not represent this target population well, and restrictions on access to individual participant trial data can further complicate absolute effect estimation. Routine care data are often representative of the target population but may be subject to uncontrolled confounding. We consider estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT), an absolute measure, by combining a representative sample of treated routine care patients with summary measures (i.e., estimated risk or hazard ratios) from either a randomised trial or a meta-analysis of trials. Under marginal or conditional transportability assumptions, the ATT is shown to be identifiable. The implications of collapsibility of the effect measure on transportability are discussed, and plug-in estimators of the ATT are presented. Simulation studies are used to assess finite sample performance of the estimators in a range of settings. The proposed methods are applied to estimate the ATT of endocrine therapy on 15-year breast cancer mortality using results from a meta-analysis of randomised trials and England's National Disease Registration Service.

stat.AP↗