Large-scale multiple testing via multivariate hidden Markov models

References

• Benjamini, Y, and D. Yekutieli. 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics 29 (4):1165–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y, and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57 (1):289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamini, Y, and Y. Hochberg. 2000. On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25 (1):60–83. doi: 10.3102/10769986025001060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, T. T., W. Sun, and W. Wang. 2019. Covariateassisted ranking and screening for largescale twosample inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Statistical Methodology 81 (2):187–234.
   Google Scholar
• Du, L, and C. Zhang. 2014. Single-index modulated multiple testing. Annals of Statistics 42 (4):1262–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron, B. 2007. Correlation and large-scale simultaneous significance testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102 (477):93–103. doi: 10.1198/016214506000001211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron, B. 2008. Microarrays, empirical Bayes and the two-groups model. Statistical Science 23 (1):34–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron, B., R. Tibshirani, J. D. Storey, and V. Tusher. 2001. Empirical bayes analysis of a microarray experiment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 (456):1151–60. doi: 10.1198/016214501753382129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, L., B. Gang, G. M. James, and W. Sun. 2020. Heteroscedasticity-adjusted ranking and thresholding for large-scale multiple testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1840992.
   Google Scholar
• Genovese, C, and L. Wasserman. 2002. Operating characteristics and extensions of the false discovery rate procedure. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 64 (3):499–517. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genovese, C, and L. Wasserman. 2004. A stochastic process approach to false discovery control. Annals of Statistics 32:3, 1035–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, W, and W. Yu. 2017. Controlling the joint local false discovery rate is more powerful than meta-analysis methods in joint analysis of summary statistics from multiple genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 33 (4):500–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuan, P. F, and D. Y. Chiang. 2012. Integrating prior knowledge in multiple testing under dependence with applications to detecting differential DNA methylation. Biometrics 68 (3):774–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01730.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, A, and R. F. Barber. 2017. Accumulation tests for FDR control in ordered hypothesis testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association 112 (518):837–49. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1180989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, P., C. Björk, C. Hultman, E. Scolnick, P. Sklar, and P. Sullivan. 2006. Recurrence risks for schizophrenia in a Swedish national cohort. Psychological Medicine 36 (10):1417–25. doi: 10.1017/S0033291706008385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, W. 2014. Incorporation of sparsity information in large-scale multiple two-sample t tests. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.4282.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, A. B. 2005. Variance of the number of false discoveries. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 67 (3):411–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00509.x.
   Google Scholar
• Ploner, A., S. Calza, A. Gusnanto, and Y. Pawitan. 2006. Multidimensional local false discovery rate for microarray studies. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 22 (5):556–65. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btk013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripke, S., C. O'Dushlaine, K. Chambert, J. Moran, A. Kähler, S. Akterin, S. Bergen, A. Collins, J. Crowley, M. Fromer, Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2, et al. 2013. Genome-wide association analysis identifies 13 new risk loci for schizophrenia. Nature Genetics 45 (10):1150–9. doi: 10.1038/ng.2742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D., S. Dudoit, and M. Van der Laan. 2006. A method to increase the power of multiple testing procedures through sample splitting. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 (1). doi: 10.2202/1544-6115.1148.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. 2014. Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci. Nature 511 (7510):421–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartzman, A, and X. Lin. 2011. The effect of correlation in false discovery rate estimation. Biometrika 98 (1):199–214. doi: 10.1093/biomet/asq075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu, H., B. Nan, and R. Koeppe. 2015. Multiple testing for neuroimaging via hidden Markov random field. Biometrics 71 (3):741–50. doi: 10.1111/biom.12329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storey, J. D. 2002. A direct approach to false discovery rates. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 64 (3):479–98. doi: 10.1111/1467-9868.00346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storey, J. D., J. E. Taylor, and D. Siegmund. 2004. Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: A unified approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 66 (1):187–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2004.00439.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su, W, and X. Wang. 2020. Hidden Markov model in multiple testing on dependent count data. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 90 (5):889–906. doi: 10.1080/00949655.2019.1710507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, W, and T. T. Cai. 2009. Large-scale multiple testing under dependence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 71 (2):393–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00694.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tansey, W., O. O. Koyejo, R. A. Poldrack, and J. G. Scott. 2018. False discovery rate smoothing. Journal of the American Statistical Association 113 (523):1156–71. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1319838.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, P, and W. Zhu. 2019. Replicability analysis in genome-wide association studies via Cartesian hidden Markov models. BMC Bioinformatics 20 (1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12859-019-2707-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, X., A. Shojaie, and J. Zou. 2019. Bayesian hidden Markov models for dependent large-scale multiple testing. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 136:123–36. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2019.01.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, Z., W. Sun, K. Wang, and H. Hakonarson. 2009. Multiple testing in genome-wide association studies via hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 25 (21):2802–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, W. B. 2008. On false discovery control under dependence. Annals of Statistics 36 (1):364–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zucchini, W, and I. L. MacDonald. 2009. Hidden Markov models for time series: An introduction using R. London: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar