Statistical adjusted test statistic

Previous discussions of multiplicity adjusted testing of gene expressions, by Dudoit et al. (2002) and (2003), for example, generally took a nonmodeling approach. Because the joint distribution of the test statistics is generally not available with this approach, multiplicity adjustments in these papers tend to be calculated based on conservative inequalities (for example, the Bonferroni inequality or Sidak s inequality) or on a joint distribution of independent test statistics. In contrast, here, we describe multiplicity adjustment based on the actual joint distribution of the test statistics. However, before describing such adjustments, we first address the construction principles to which all multiple tests should adhere, regardless of the approach taken. These principles do not appear to be as well known in the field of bioinformatics as they are in clinical trials. 

This sum, when divided by the number of data points minus the number of degrees of freedom, approximates the overall variance of errors. It is a measure of the overall fit of the equation to the data. Thus, two different models with the same number of adjustable parameters yield different values for this variance when fit to the same data with the same estimated standard errors in the measured variables. Similarly, the same model, fit to different sets of data, yields different values for the overall variance. The differences in these variances are the basis for many standard statistical tests for model and data comparison. Such statistical tests are discussed in detail by Crow et al. (1960) and Brownlee (1965). 

Rectification accounts for systematic measurement error. During rectification, measurements that are systematically in error are identified and discarded. Rectification can be done either cyclically or simultaneously with reconciliation, and either intuitively or algorithmically. Simple methods such as data validation and complicated methods using various statistical tests can be used to identify the presence of large systematic (gross) errors in the measurements. Coupled with successive elimination and addition, the measurements with the errors can be identified and discarded. No method is completely reliable. Plant-performance analysts must recognize that rectification is approximate, at best. Frequently, systematic errors go unnoticed, and some bias is likely in the adjusted measurements. 

Spreadsheet Analysis Once validation is complete, prescreening the measurements using the process constraints as the comparison statistic is particularly usenil. This is the first step in the global test discussed in the rectification section. Also, an initial adjustment in component flows will provide the initial point for reconciliation. Therefore, the goals of this prescreening are to ... 

The role of quality in reliability would seem obvious, and yet at times has been rather elusive. While it seems intuitively correct, it is difficult to measure. Since much of the equipment discussed in this book is built as a custom engineered product, the classic statistical methods do not readily apply. Even for the smaller, more standardized rotary units discussed in Chapter 4, the production runs are not high, keeping the sample size too small for a classical statistical analysis. Run adjustments are difficult if the run is complete before the data can be analyzed. However, modified methods have been developed that do provide useful statistical information. These data can be used to determine a machine tool s capability, which must be known for proper machine selection to match the required precision of a part. The information can also be used to test for continuous improvement in the work process. 

Misleading results can be obtained from tests of limit statistics and sensors if their set point is adjusted to the current conditions to bring about operation. The control points should be set and conditions adjusted until operation occurs, opportunities arising during the test procedure. 

As a result of this protocol, four indicators were dropped because in each case, they did not pass the first consistency test, that is, failed to discriminate adequately at all levels of the scale. Next, Tyrka et al. (1995) calculated the taxon base rate for each indicator using a hybrid of MAXCOV and Latent Class Analysis estimation procedures (for details see Golden, 1982) and adjusted the estimate for the true- and false-positive rates computed earlier. The average taxon base rate was. 49. The authors did not report a variability statistic, but a simple computation shows that SD of base rate estimates was. 04. 

Very few test statistics to deal with classical ANOVA F Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Feldt adjusted df, and ANOVA F. 

The effect of adjusting for tied ranks is to slightly increase the value of the test statistic, H. Therefore, omission of this adjustment results in a more conservative test. 

Typically extrapolations of many kinds are necessary to complete a risk assessment. The number and type of extrapolations will depend, as we have said, on the differences between condition A and condition B, and on how well these differences are understood. Once we have characterized these differences as well as we can, it becomes necessary to identify, if at all possible, a firm scientific basis for conducting each of the required extrapolations. Some, as just mentioned, might be susceptible to relatively simple statistical analysis, but in most cases we will find that statistical methods are inadequate. Often, we may find that all we can do is to apply an assumption of some sort, and then hope that most rational souls find the assumption likely to be close to the truth. Scientists like to be able to claim that the extrapolation can be described by some type of model. A model is usually a mathematical or verbal description of a natural process, which is developed through research, tested for accuracy with new and more refined research, adjusted as necessary to ensure agreement with the new research results, and then used to predict the behavior of future instances of the natural process. Models are refined as new knowledge is acquired. 

In summary, GC adjusts for population stratification without the assumption or estimation of parameters such as the number of subpopulations involved in the study. It provides control of false-positive results caused by population structure as well as by multiple testing. One possible drawback of this method is that the correction of the test statistic is constant across the genome. As a result, GC may have less power in certain situations. 

There are two potential solutions to this problem. First, we can pre-specify a single test (group) on the primary endpoint at a single point in time, much in line with Hill s views. Or, we can attempt a statistical solution based on adjusting the type-1 error for the individual tests. 

If there are separate analysis plans for the clinical and economic evaluations, efforts should be made to make them as consistent as possible (e.g., shared use of an intention-to-treat analysis, shared use of statistical tests for variables used commonly by both analyses, etc.). At the same time, the outcomes of the clinical and economic studies can differ (e.g., the primary outcome of the clinical evaluation might focus on event-free survival, while the primary outcome of the economic evaluation might focus on quality-adjusted survival). Thus, the two plans need not be identical. 

Using several different statistical methods, for example, an unpaired t-test, an analysis adjusted for centre effects, ANCOVA adjusting for centre and including baseline risk as a covariate, etc., and choosing that method which produces the smallest p-value is another form of multiplicity and is inappropriate. 

---