ライフサイエンスコーパス: false discovery rate

1 ps were significantly different, P < .05; 5% false discovery rate).

2 ps were significantly different, P > .05; 5% false discovery rate).

3 tion means (all P < .02 after correction for false discovery rates).

4 , difficulties replicating findings and high false discovery rates).

5 ly; multiple testing correction was based on false discovery rate.

6 al challenge to control the inflation of the false discovery rate.

7 nt and hyper-tolerant, while controlling the false discovery rate.

8 and exhibits overall high accuracy at a low false discovery rate.

9 itative trait loci for 92 phenotypes at a 5% false discovery rate.

10 3,301 unique cross-links at approximately 1% false discovery rate.

11 eatest sensitivity while controlling for the false discovery rate.

12 ing, p-values were adjusted according to the false discovery rate.

13 Significance was defined by this estimated false discovery rate.

14 hmark the ability of a method to control the false discovery rate.

15 ensitivity than existing methods at the same false discovery rate.

16 Multiple comparisons were adjusted with the false discovery rate.

17 01) did not hold up after correction for the false discovery rate.

18 apoB remained significant after controlling false discovery rate.

19 ed cell supernatants were identified at a 1% false discovery rate.

20 ially abundant proteins with a corresponding false discovery rate.

21 tween conditions and controlling the spatial false discovery rate.

22 P values were corrected for false discovery rate.

23 lusions and the thresholding of the Bayesian false discovery rate.

24 rugs) being established with a preset target false discovery rate.

25 these tests, which can lead to an increased false-discovery rate.

26 dentified cis-eQTLs for 12,400 genes at a 1% false-discovery rate.

27 tatistical approaches are crucial to control false discovery rates.

28 detect clustering differentials and compute false discovery rates.

29 , and permutation testing was used to assess false discovery rates.

30 are associated with low specificity and high false discovery rates.

31 Ps in the target population to compute local false-discovery rates.

32 d compared with adults (fold-change >/= 50%, false discovery rate = 0.02) and that was only poorly re

33 treme quartiles of intake in the EPIC study (false discovery rate = 0.43) and evaluated these factors

34 llowing correction for multiple comparisons (false-discovery rate, 0.12).

35 ferences among microhabitats (mean FST=0.15; false discovery rate 1%).

36 least 25% population while maintaining a low false discovery rate (10%) and conservative error estima

37 rait heritability in eight brain phenotypes (false discovery rate=10%).

38 At a 5% false discovery rate, 1040 genes exhibited >1.15-fold ch

39 significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (false discovery rate, 15%) in 4 quantitative trait loci

40 SAT between the ND and CD (nominal P < 0.01; false discovery rate, 25%).

41 ct sizes, none used Bayesian methods, 1 used false-discovery rates, 3 used sample size/power calculat

42 ernal plasma folate levels during pregnancy (false discovery rate 5%); 48 are significant after Bonfe

43 ing at genome-wide statistical significance (false discovery rate, 5%), including 2,965 CpGs correspo

44 specific for colorectal neoplasia (P < 0.05, false discovery rate: 5%, adjusted alpha = 0.0038).

45 nts/food groups analyzed and controlling for false discovery rate, 87% were judged equivalent at the

46 DMD patients and healthy volunteers at a 1% false-discovery rate, a large number of significant prot

47 between groups and surviving adjustment for false discovery rate (adjusted P<0.1).

48 rogression was compared with ethnicity using false discovery rate, adjusted Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, an

49 er operating characteristics curve: 63%-69%, false discovery rate-adjusted P < .05).

50 and -28.24 [-56.29 to 12.08], respectively; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01 and .03, respectiv

51 , and 10.72 [-11.23 to 29.57], respectively; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01, .04, and .05, res

52 itine; median change, 7.83 [-5.64 to 26.99]; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .03).

53 , and 50 showed at least 1.5-fold variation (false discovery rate adjustment q value <0.05).

54 s from multiple phenotypes using conditional false discovery rate analysis provides increased power t

55 novel ALS-associated loci using conditional false discovery rate analysis.

56 Genetic loci identified by conditional false discovery rate analysis.

57 for multiple hypothesis testing by using the false discovery rate and evaluated the findings in an in

58 el residuals model with a gene size adjusted false discovery rate and exon-level analysis to circumve

59 valuates their significance according to the false discovery rate and finally displays the prediction

60 ith existing methods, our approach had a low false discovery rate and substantially improved the dete

61 estimate of pseudotime can lead to inflated false discovery rates and that probabilistic approaches

62 ps were significantly different, P < .05; 5% false discovery rate) and in patients with deficit schiz

63 d SNP: 898 SNPs in 343 unique lincRNAs at 5% false discovery rate, and 469 SNPs in 146 unique lincRNA

64 ment for clinical covariates, correction for false discovery rate, and metaanalysis were used to test

65 or multiple comparisons, performed using the false discovery rate approach (p < 0.05 corrected), sign

66 Applying the conditional false discovery rate approach, we increased discovery of

67 ts [89 of 1314 cis-eQTLs at P < 1 x 10(-06) (false discovery rate approximately 5%)] and one of eight

68 The method has a monotonically decreasing false discovery rate as a function of effect size, unlik

69 hed PSMs and 1390 linked residue pairs at 5% false discovery rate, as confirmed by the crystal struct

70 ed with mortality risk after controlling the false discovery rate at 5%: interleukin (IL) 6 (hazard r

71 n 3'UTR, while controlling mixed directional false discovery rate at a nominal level.

72 h for a targeted power while controlling the false discovery rate at a user-specified level.

73 r value to each finding; this is the lowest false discovery rate at which the finding can be called

74 ds in terms of power while maintaining a low false discovery rate based on simulation studies and rea

75 False discovery rate-based statistics identified a highe

76 obtained using PacBio long-reads indicates a false discovery rate below 5%, at the cost of reduced se

77 e number of associated disease genes at a 5% false discovery rate by an average of 2.1-fold compared

78 zation score for generic PTMs and associated false discovery rate called the false localization rate.

79 Therefore, computation time and the false discovery rate can also scale quadratically.

80 We note that false-discovery rates can be estimated at different poin

81 ly developed genetic pleiotropic conditional false discovery rate (cFDR) approach to discover novel l

82 posed method improves power and controls the false discovery rate compared to other commonly applied

83 igher power of detection and almost the same false discovery rate compared with EN and EBlasso.

84 The false discovery rate conditional on the evolutionary pro

85 ompared by using a general linear model with false discovery rate control for multiple comparisons.

86 fferential gene expression was analyzed, and false discovery rate control was performed for statistic

87 tions seem to perform better with respect to false discovery rate control when data are simulated fro

88 Using stringent false discovery rate control, 15 % of methylation sites

89 methylation microarray analysis in terms of false discovery rate control, statistical power, and sta

90 n rank sum tests, with P values adjusted for false discovery rate control.

91 such as those of Holm, Hochberg, and Sidak; false discovery rate control; and resampling approaches.

92 iet groups were tested by using ANOVA, and a false discovery rate-controlling procedure was used to a

93 s analysis, p values were significant at the false discovery rate corrected threshold of p=0.0156.

94 n (increased fractional anisotropy, P = .01, false discovery rate corrected), and tractography identi

95 ected; tractography: P values < .001 to .05, false discovery rate corrected).

96 ontal, temporal, and parietal gyri (P < .05, false discovery rate corrected).

97 sm (statistical parametric mapping analyses, false discovery rate corrected).

98 eric tracts and thalamic radiation (P < .05, false discovery rate corrected).

99 sivity of the left dentate gyrus (p = 0.002; false discovery rate corrected; adjusting for sex, age,

100 sociated with percentage of TMSe (P < 0.001, false-discovery rate corrected) in both cohorts.

101 betas were 2.5 and 2.38, respectively, with false discovery rate-corrected P-values of 0.032.

102 False discovery rate-corrected voxel-based findings were

103 gnificantly changed after intervention, with false discovery rate correction for multiple hypothesis

104 Analysis of variance with false discovery rate correction for multiple testing (P<

105 However, after false discovery rate correction for multiple testing, on

106 rty significantly changed metabolites before false discovery rate correction were unknown compounds.

107 y of its prognosis were confirmed also after false discovery rate correction.

108 False-discovery rate correction was made for multiple hy

109 cutes and Proteobacteria, respectively, at a false discovery rate cutoff of less than 0.1.

110 abolomics, this degeneracy leads to inflated false discovery rates, data sets containing an order of

111 tion, providing a safeguard against inflated false-discovery rates due to genetic heterogeneity betwe

112 l, statistical confidence estimates based on false discovery rate estimation and, most significantly,

113 the benefits of open searching for improved false discovery rate estimation in proteomics.

114 An empirical false-discovery rate estimation method, based on a targe

115 re set of tests, thus controlling the global false discovery rate even when P-values are arbitrarily

116 significant covariances and also to control false discovery rates, even when the sample size is smal

117 F antigens from healthy controls and LC at a False Discovery Rate (FDR) < 0.01.

118 tified several significant pathways for BMD [false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.05], such as KEGG FOCAL A

119 es and 9 unknowns to be changing at weaning [false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.05].

120 t expression changes in breast tumors with a false discovery rate (FDR) < 1% in the discovery dataset

121 ng over 10,000 gene targets (eGenes), with a false discovery rate (FDR) < 5%.

122 the 23,060 significant cis-regulated genes (false discovery rate (FDR) </= 0.05), 2,743 (12%) showed

123 und that a total of 12 significant SNPs with false discovery rate (FDR) </=0.05 were mapped to one no

124 At a false discovery rate (FDR) <0.1, we identified 1270 diff

125 ficantly higher blood erythritol [P < 0.001, false discovery rate (FDR) = 0.0435], and the targeted a

126 nt, (ii) a Bonferroni adjustment and (iii) a false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment which is widely us

127 ps and outperformed other methods in scaling False Discovery Rate (FDR) analysis.

128 ating characteristic (ROC) curve to minimize false discovery rate (FDR) and calculate the best thresh

129 the overall correct allocation rate, and the false discovery rate (FDR) and false non-discovery rate

130 on accuracy in terms of controlling both the false discovery rate (FDR) and the false negative rate (

131 Using the conditional false discovery rate (FDR) approach, we evaluated pleiot

132 NR than HMM-NASE, while both can control the false discovery rate (FDR) at a similar level.

133 testing procedure, named Bon-EV, to control false discovery rate (FDR) based on Bonferroni's approac

134 False discovery rate (FDR) control is an important tool

135 gress in multiple testing procedures such as false discovery rate (FDR) control, methods that take in

136 Crucial steps such as false discovery rate (FDR) control, retention time norma

137 After false discovery rate (FDR) correction, a total of 8 CNVs

138 d target-decoy based methods to estimate the false discovery rate (FDR) for 70 public metabolomics da

139 gene expression experiment while controlling false discovery rate (FDR) is Storey's q-value method.

140 scherichia coli proteome with spectrum-level false discovery rate (FDR) less than 1%.

141 ficantly associated with personal PM2.5 at a false discovery rate (FDR) of 20%.

142 nd 160 trans protein level QTLs (pQTLs) at a false discovery rate (FDR) of 20%.

143 ets with an average sensitivity of 90% and a false discovery rate (FDR) of 3%, surpassing the perform

144 t a much larger number of putative loci at a false discovery rate (FDR) of 5% (refs.

145 At a false discovery rate (FDR) of 5%, we had identified 28 s

146 1 , and 5' of MEF2C ( P- values < 8x10 - 5 ; false discovery rate (FDR) q-values < 0.01) that were mu

147 o detect as many as DEFs while requiring the false discovery rate (FDR) to be lower than a cut-off.

148 We used conjunction false discovery rate (FDR) to evaluate genetic pleiotrop

149 nce of the tools in terms of sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) using real data and simulated

150 Genes with a significant frequency (false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05) of non-silent mutations

151 blood at epigenome-wide significance level [false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05].

152 ntification of up to 4,002 proteins (at a 1% false discovery rate (FDR)) in yeast (Saccharomyces cere

153 fferential expression of 33 muscle mRNAs (5% false discovery rate (FDR)), six of which, linked to mit

154 ntrol procedures, such as the Bonferroni and false discovery rate (FDR), are often impractical to app

155 In addition, false discovery rate (FDR), instead of family-wise type

156 sociated SNPs by estimating stratum-specific false discovery rate (FDR), where strata are classified

157 idely used statistical method for estimating false discovery rate (FDR), which is a conventional sign

158 We report pySM, a framework for false discovery rate (FDR)-controlled metabolite annotat

159 global cutoff to judge significance, such as False Discovery Rate (FDR).

160 ormatively weight p values while controlling false discovery rate (FDR).

161 high confidence, scoring cross-links at 0.5% false discovery rate (FDR).

162 analyzed probes (63,207 CpG probes) at a 5% false discovery rate (FDR).

163 ative enrichment score (RES) and conditional false discovery rate (FDR).

164 t SNPs with significant Bayes factor at a 5% false discovery rate (FDR).

165 g in 700-900 protein identifications at a 1% false discovery rate (FDR).

166 amily-wise error rate and the others control false discovery rate (FDR).

167 the glutamatergic neurotransmission system (false discovery rate (FDR)=0.0097) and the serotonergic

168 lacks statistical methods for estimating the false discovery rates (FDR) of these annotations.

169 nome sequencing has led to unacceptably high false discovery rates (FDR).

170 was associated with plasma adiponectin after false-discovery rate (FDR) correction (empirical P < 0.0

171 hain fatty acid (SCFA) producer Lachnospira [false-discovery rate (FDR)-corrected P = 0.25] but decre

172 We identified and replicated 16 CpG-sites (false discovery rate [FDR] < 0.05), at 11 independent lo

173 d a 14-gene radiogenomic signature (P < .05, false discovery rate [FDR] < 0.20), which was confirmed

174 identified 287 genes with cis-acting eQTLs (false discovery rate [FDR] <5%; P < 1.96 x 10(-5)) and 4

175 kg in females, 95% CI 1.06-1.27, P < 0.001, false discovery rate [FDR] = 0.008) but not at 24 or 36

176 groups improved on improvement index (>30%; false discovery rate [FDR] corrected p < 0.0008) and non

177 in areas of alpha-s- and beta-casein (P<.01, false discovery rate [FDR]<.1).

178 g an additional 11 significant associations (false discovery rate [FDR]) < 0.05).

179 current MDD and control groups (129 genes at false-discovery rate, FDR<0.1).

180 The sex-determination gene set (false discovery rate, FDRM < 0.001, FDRI < 0.001) and pa

181 regions (DMRs), and bootstrapping determines false discovery rates (FDRs) associated with each patter

182 ltiple hypothesis testing by controlling the false-discovery rate (FDRWilcoxon, FDRNoether) with a si

183 vered 3218 cis- and 35 trans-eQTLs at </=10% false discovery rate in human placentas.

184 ying viability and gross morphogenesis, with false discovery rates in the 4-8% range.

185 detected as differentially expressed at a 5% false discovery rate, including a few immune response ge

186 ctional analysis identified 17 novel loci at false discovery rate less than 0.05 with overlap between

187 eplicated associations--with a meta-analysis false discovery rate less than 10(-4)--between IgE and l

188 partitioned naturally-controlling the local False Discovery Rate (lFDR) per stratum, or partition, y

189 n present a new method to estimate the local false discovery rate (lfdr) that incorporates feature re

190 er for association testing while keeping the false discovery rate low under a verity of genetic archi

191 ion start site and 5' ends of first introns (false discovery rate < 0.001) of genes down-regulated in

192 171 bacterial taxa that were significantly (false discovery rate < 0.05) more or less abundant, resp

193 mber of significantly regulated metabolites (false discovery rate < 0.05) to a total of 23.

194 ased expression of 276 transcripts (FC > 2x, false discovery rate < 0.05), including IFNG, TNF, CSF2,

195 ted with 163 differentially methylated loci (false discovery rate < 0.05), with 11 probes within the

196 lly expressed in HDM APT (fold change >2 and false discovery rate < 0.05), with increased expression

197 ferential DNA methylation of UNC5C and ENC1 (false discovery rate < 0.05).

198 n containing 3 (NRLP3) inflammasome members (false discovery rate < 0.05).

199 inflamed colon and TNF-alpha-treated cells (false discovery rate < 0.05).

200 nificant variant (rs6763931; P = 4 x 10(-6); false discovery rate < 0.05).

201 tations more frequently in males (based on a false discovery rate < 0.1), in comparison to zero of 18

202 s (91 annotated genes, fold change > 2.0 and false discovery rate < 0.25) were differentially express

203 EB1, GSDMB, GRAMD3 and ENSA; P < 5 x 10(-8); false discovery rate < 1%).

204 e phosphopeptides mapping to 1,159 proteins (false discovery rate < 2%).

205 ied 63 differentially methylated CpGs (DMCs; false discovery rate < 5%) proximal to 81 genes (across

206 re than 3,500 genes (log2 fold change >/= 1, false discovery rate </= 0.01), many of which were disti

207 essed genes (criteria: fold change, >/= 2.0; false discovery rate </= 0.05) in lesional versus nonles

208 NAs that interacted with WT PKR (>/=twofold, false discovery rate </= 5%) were small nucleolar RNAs (

209 -associated neurons (59 significant genes at false discovery rate </=0.05) was attenuated compared wi

210 response to depolarization (linear models at false discovery rate </=0.05).

211 th control samples (594 significant genes at false discovery rate </=0.05).

212 fy conserved sequences as short as 9 bp with false discovery rate </=0.05.

213 ites were associated with sodium intake at a false discovery rate </=0.10, only 4-ethylphenylsufate,

214 SNPs meeting a false discovery rate </=0.20 (P<0.002) were then tested

215 tected, with 10 transcripts significant at a false discovery rate </=5%.

216 oci associated with CAD (overall conditional false discovery rate <0.01).

217 significantly enriched biological processes (false discovery rate <0.01).

218 ted expression probes belonging to 15 genes (false discovery rate <0.01).

219 ed in unstressed hearts (fold change >/=25%, false discovery rate <0.02), only 4 (11%) continued to b

220 ed by infection in CHB and CS, respectively (false discovery rate <0.05) while 27 of these genes were

221 rs were significant P<1x10(-7) (2623 CpGs at false discovery rate <0.05), indicating a pattern of per

222 s were found to be differentially expressed (false discovery rate <0.05), of which seven genes replic

223 roni threshold of P<1x10(-7) (18 760 CpGs at false discovery rate <0.05).

224 an association with all cancer types tested (false discovery rate <0.05).

225 At a false discovery rate <0.05, we identified 370 cis-expres

226 ere differentially expressed post infection (false discovery rate <0.1).

227 y altered between EAE and control (p < 0.05, false discovery rate <0.10).

228 factors, and caloric intake controlled for (false discovery rate <0.2).Of 113 diet-related metabolit

229 ter correction for multiple comparisons by a false discovery rate <0.20.

230 work analyses showed significant enrichment (false discovery rate <1 x 10(-5)) in genes that encode m

231 ThcD), reporting over 12,000 high-confident (false discovery rate <1%) peptides from a single human B

232 l, 4,901 genes with a fold change >1.5 and a false discovery rate <5% were detected in patients versu

233 P values 0.01 or less were significant (false discovery rate <5%).

234 ; (2) are enriched for ion channel pathways (false discovery rates <0.05); and (3) contain 62 genes t

235 -trait-associated changes in expression at a false-discovery rate < 0.05.

236 ne levels after sleep restriction (P < 0.05, false-discovery rate < 0.2).

237 , 13 genes were statistically significantly (false-discovery rate <0.1) differentially expressed; in

238 es were corrected for multiple testing using false discovery rate (<0.05).

239 tistical significance (fold change>/=1.5 and false discovery rate</=0.05), to identify unique proteom

240 ly expressed in vivo compared with in vitro (false discovery rate, </=0.001; 2-fold change) with 557

241 ifferences at 923 CpGs in the discovery set (false discovery rate, <0.2).

242 plicated in at least one replication cohort (false discovery rate, <25%).

243 sets from the Molecular Signatures Database (false discovery rate, <5%).

244 discuss the concept of the mixed-directional false discovery rate (mdFDR), and extend the general pro

245 l error rate is called the mixed directional false discovery rate (mdFDR).

246 The false discovery rate method controlled for multiple anal

247 Applying the conditional false discovery rate method to the enriched phenotypes,

248 Using the conjunction false discovery rate method, this study analyzed GWAS da

249 tropy-informed conditional and conjunctional false discovery rate methodology, we systematically inve

250 The traditional false discovery rate methods treat all features equally,

251 tically significant novel mature miRNAs at a false discovery rate of </= 0.05 arising from 3,494 nove

252 hat were associated with depolarization at a false discovery rate of </=0.05.

253 d for multiple comparisons with the use of a false discovery rate of <0.1.

254 biological themes, we selected 70 DMRs with false discovery rate of <0.1.

255 e-nucleotide variants (SNVs) at an estimated false discovery rate of <1.0%.

256 Finally, a remarkable false discovery rate of 0 was achieved on the N-glycosyl

257 and KCNJ11 significantly downregulated at a false discovery rate of 0%.

258 ptides from global tryptic peptides and at a false discovery rate of 1%, 1008 glycan-containing MS/MS

259 we identified 2,707 independent caQTLs (at a false discovery rate of 10%) and demonstrated how RASQUA

260 We identified 341 loci (at a false discovery rate of 10%) associated with multiple tr

261 total of 6,513 protein groups with a protein false discovery rate of 3.17% across all cell lines.

262 Finally, our method had a false discovery rate of 5 % for the validation cohort.

263 At a false discovery rate of 5%, we identified 16 cis G x BMI

264 At an estimated false discovery rate of 60%, we predicted 250,498 PPIs a

265 A fold change of greater than 1.5 and a false discovery rate of less than 0.05 were used for dif

266 ergy (P = 1.4e-17) encompassing 29 loci at a false discovery rate of less than 0.05.

267 fold increase or a comparable decrease and a false discovery rate of P < .05.

268 we compute conservative experimentally-based false discovery rates of our method and demonstrate the

269 ponded to a significant eQTL at a gene-level false-discovery rate of 0.05.

270 he curve of 0.64, p<0.0001), but with a high false-discovery rate of 72%.

271 We adopt the concept of the overall false discovery rate (OFDR) for controlling false discov

272 fied cross-linked peptide pairs passing a 5% false discovery rate (on average approximately 21% more

273 eral existing methods either fail to control false discovery rate or have reduced power in the presen

274 ampling methods could be used to control the false discovery rate or the family-wise error rate (as d

275 Eight single-nucleotide polymorphisms (false discovery rate P < .05) were associated with both

276 d rs12570088 (closest gene IPMK; conjunction false discovery rate P = .009 for AD and Crohn disease,

277 s2516049 (closest gene HLA-DRB5; conjunction false discovery rate P = .04 for AD and psoriasis, 5.37

278 ry outcome was the pleiotropic (conjunction) false discovery rate P value.

279 transcripts and genes from 1599 genes (DEGs; false discovery rate P<0.05, fold change |2|, controllin

280 rametric mapping, adjusting for age and sex (false discovery rate, P = 0.05; spatial extent, 50 voxel

281 d metabolic subnetwork of size controlled by false discovery rate parameters.

282 reverse stepwise regression analysis and the false discovery rate procedure were used.

283 Using a false discovery rate q <0.05, we identified three transc

284 ptor, associated with lung disease severity (false discovery rate q value = 0.0006).

285 n sites showing an association with BMI at a false discovery rate q value of 0.05 or less were taken

286 We identify 44 (false discovery rate q<0.05) phenotypes associated with

287 ependent signals in 109 loci have achieved a false discovery rate (q<0.05) and together explain 28% o

288 iate and then multivariate analysis by using false-discovery-rate statistics.

289 Our method shows lower false discovery rates than existing methods on simulated

290 Following adjustment for false discovery rate, the complete set of probes yielded

291 ride single-nucleotide polymorphisms using a false discovery rate threshold <0.05.

292 ression at alpha < 0.05 missed by the global false discovery rate threshold FDR < 0.3.

293 with the majority (22/29) of genes passing a false discovery rate threshold of 0.3.

294 ns, permutation testing and estimates of the false discovery rate to consider the strength of results

295 teractions across multiple cell lines with a false discovery rate up to 15 times smaller than that ob

296 With the current sample size, the estimated false discovery rate was approximately 1%.

297 The false discovery rate was assessed by beta-uniform mixtur

298 The method of controlling the false discovery rate was used to adjust for multiple com

299 Odds ratios and false discovery rates were calculated, and the impact of

300 e filtering approach to significantly reduce false discovery rate without sacrificing sensitivity.