Last updated: 2018-05-15
workflowr checks: (Click a bullet for more information) ✔ R Markdown file: up-to-date
Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.
✔ Environment: empty
Great job! The global environment was empty. Objects defined in the global environment can affect the analysis in your R Markdown file in unknown ways. For reproduciblity it’s best to always run the code in an empty environment.
✔ Seed:
set.seed(12345)
The command set.seed(12345)
was run prior to running the code in the R Markdown file. Setting a seed ensures that any results that rely on randomness, e.g. subsampling or permutations, are reproducible.
✔ Session information: recorded
Great job! Recording the operating system, R version, and package versions is critical for reproducibility.
✔ Repository version: 388e65e
wflow_publish
or wflow_git_commit
). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated:
Ignored files:
Ignored: .DS_Store
Ignored: .Rhistory
Ignored: .Rproj.user/
Ignored: analysis/.DS_Store
Ignored: analysis/BH_robustness_cache/
Ignored: analysis/FDR_Null_cache/
Ignored: analysis/FDR_null_betahat_cache/
Ignored: analysis/Rmosek_cache/
Ignored: analysis/StepDown_cache/
Ignored: analysis/alternative2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/alternative_cache/
Ignored: analysis/ash_gd_cache/
Ignored: analysis/average_cor_gtex_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/average_cor_gtex_cache/
Ignored: analysis/brca_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_deconv_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_fdr_1_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_fdr_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_fdr_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_fdr_4_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_fdr_5_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_fdr_6_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_plots_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_1_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_4_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_5_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_6_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cash_sim_7_cache/
Ignored: analysis/correlated_z_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/correlated_z_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/correlated_z_cache/
Ignored: analysis/create_null_cache/
Ignored: analysis/cutoff_null_cache/
Ignored: analysis/design_matrix_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/design_matrix_cache/
Ignored: analysis/diagnostic_ash_cache/
Ignored: analysis/diagnostic_correlated_z_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/diagnostic_correlated_z_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/diagnostic_correlated_z_cache/
Ignored: analysis/diagnostic_plot_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/diagnostic_plot_cache/
Ignored: analysis/efron_leukemia_cache/
Ignored: analysis/fitting_normal_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gaussian_derivatives_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gaussian_derivatives_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gaussian_derivatives_4_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gaussian_derivatives_5_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gaussian_derivatives_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gd-ash_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gd_delta_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gd_lik_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gd_lik_cache/
Ignored: analysis/gd_w_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_10_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_4_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_5_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_6_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_7_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_8_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_9_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_cache/
Ignored: analysis/knockoff_var_cache/
Ignored: analysis/marginal_z_alternative_cache/
Ignored: analysis/marginal_z_cache/
Ignored: analysis/mosek_reg_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/mosek_reg_4_cache/
Ignored: analysis/mosek_reg_5_cache/
Ignored: analysis/mosek_reg_6_cache/
Ignored: analysis/mosek_reg_cache/
Ignored: analysis/pihat0_null_cache/
Ignored: analysis/plot_diagnostic_cache/
Ignored: analysis/poster_obayes17_cache/
Ignored: analysis/real_data_simulation_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/real_data_simulation_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/real_data_simulation_4_cache/
Ignored: analysis/real_data_simulation_5_cache/
Ignored: analysis/real_data_simulation_cache/
Ignored: analysis/rmosek_primal_dual_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/rmosek_primal_dual_cache/
Ignored: analysis/seqgendiff_cache/
Ignored: analysis/simulated_correlated_null_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/simulated_correlated_null_3_cache/
Ignored: analysis/simulated_correlated_null_cache/
Ignored: analysis/simulation_real_se_2_cache/
Ignored: analysis/simulation_real_se_cache/
Ignored: analysis/smemo_2_cache/
Ignored: data/LSI/
Ignored: docs/.DS_Store
Ignored: docs/figure/.DS_Store
Ignored: output/fig/
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
---|---|---|---|---|
html | fe8f8f7 | LSun | 2018-05-12 | Update to 1.0 |
Rmd | cc0ab83 | Lei Sun | 2018-05-11 | update |
html | 0f36d99 | LSun | 2017-12-21 | Build site. |
html | 853a484 | LSun | 2017-11-07 | Build site. |
html | 1ea081a | LSun | 2017-07-03 | sites |
html | 7693edf | LSun | 2017-02-14 | pipeline |
Rmd | 681085c | LSun | 2017-02-10 | fdr |
html | 681085c | LSun | 2017-02-10 | fdr |
html | 81d84f5 | LSun | 2017-02-10 | FDR |
Rmd | 2696cb2 | LSun | 2017-02-10 | fwer |
html | 2696cb2 | LSun | 2017-02-10 | fwer |
html | 066c544 | LSun | 2017-02-03 | StepDown |
Rmd | 4afbe4e | LSun | 2017-02-03 | StepDown |
html | 59fd661 | LSun | 2017-02-03 | Build site. |
Rmd | c4165dc | LSun | 2017-02-03 | simulation |
html | c4165dc | LSun | 2017-02-03 | simulation |
Rmd | 313897f | LSun | 2017-02-03 | details |
html | 313897f | LSun | 2017-02-03 | details |
html | 36c1e4c | LSun | 2017-02-03 | Build site. |
Rmd | d25a6e3 | LSun | 2017-02-03 | step-down |
html | d25a6e3 | LSun | 2017-02-03 | step-down |
Last updated: 2018-05-15
Code version: 388e65e
In order to understand the behavior of \(p\)-values of top expressed, correlated genes under the global null, simulated from GTEx data, we apply two FWER-controlling multiple comparison procedures, Holm’s “step-down” (Holm 1979) and Hochberg’s “step-up.” (Hochberg 1988)
It can be shown that Holm’s procedure conservatively controls the FWER in the strong sense, under arbitrary correlation among \(p\)-values.
First, order the \(p\)-values
\[ p_{(1)} \leq p_{(2)} \leq \cdots \leq p_{(n)} \]
and let \(H_{(1)}, H_{(2)}, \ldots, H_{(n)}\) be the corresponding hypotheses. Then examine the \(p\)-values in order.
Step 1: If \(p_{(1)} \leq \alpha/n\) reject \(H_{(1)}\) and go to Step 2. Otherwise, accept \(H_{(1)}, H_{(2)}, \ldots, H_{(n)}\) and stop.
……
Step \(i\): If \(p_{(i)} \leq \alpha / (n − i + 1)\) reject \(H_{(i)}\) and go to step \(i + 1\). Otherwise, accept \(H_{(i)}, H_{(i + 1)}, \ldots, H_{(n)}\) and stop.
……
Step \(n\): If \(p_{(n)} \leq \alpha\), reject \(H_{(n)}\). Otherwise, accept \(H_{(n)}\).
Hence the procedure starts with the most extreme (smallest) \(p\)-value and stops the first time \(p_{(i)}\) exceeds the critical value \(\alpha_i = \alpha/(n − i + 1)\).
It can be shown that Holm’s procedure conservatively controls the FWER in the strong sense, under arbitrary correlation among \(p\)-values.
It can be shown that Hochberg’s procedure conservatively controls the FWER in the strong sense, when \(p\)-values are independent.
First, order the \(p\)-values
\[ p_{(1)} \leq p_{(2)} \leq \cdots \leq p_{(n)} \]
and let \(H_{(1)}, H_{(2)}, \ldots, H_{(n)}\) be the corresponding hypotheses. Then examine the \(p\)-values in order.
Step 1: If \(p_{(n)} \leq \alpha\) reject \(H_{(1)}, \ldots, H_{(n)}\) and stop. Otherwise, accept \(H_{(n)}\) and go to step 2.
……
Step \(i\): If \(p_{(n - i + 1)} \leq \alpha / i\) reject \(H_{(1)}, \ldots, H_{(n - i + 1)}\) and stop. Otherwise, accept \(H_{(n - i + 1)}\) and go to step \(i + 1\).
……
Step \(n\): If \(p_{(1)} \leq \alpha / n\), reject \(H_{(1)}\). Otherwise, accept \(H_{(1)}\).
Hence the procedure starts with the least extreme (largest) \(p\)-value and stops the first time \(p_{(i)}\) falls below the critical value \(\alpha_i = \alpha/(n − i + 1)\).
It can be shown that Hochberg’s procedure conservatively controls the FWER in the strong sense, when \(p\)-values are independent.
Sarkar 1998 also pointed out that Hochberg’s procedure can control the FWER strongly under certain dependency among the test statistics, such as a multivariate normal with a common marginal distribution and positive correlations.
Holm’s procedure is based on Bonferroni correction, whereas Hochberg’s on Sime’s inequality. Both use exactly the same thresholds, comparing \(p_{(i)}\) with \(\alpha/(n − i + 1)\), yet Holm’s starts from the smallest \(p\)-value, and Hochberg’s from the largest. Hochberg’s is thus strictly more powerful than Holm’s.
Now we apply the two procedures to the simulated, correlated null data.
p1 = read.table("../output/p_null_liver.txt")
p2 = read.table("../output/p_null_liver_777.txt")
p = rbind(p1, p2)
m = nrow(p)
holm = hochberg = matrix(nrow = m, ncol = ncol(p))
for(i in 1:m){
holm[i, ] = p.adjust(p[i, ], method = "holm") # p-values adjusted by Holm (1979)
hochberg[i, ] = p.adjust(p[i, ], method = "hochberg") # p_values adjusted by Hochberg (1988)
}
## calculate empirical FWER at 100 nominal FWER's
alpha = seq(0, 0.15, length = 100)
fwer_holm = fwer_hochberg = c()
for (i in 1:length(alpha)) {
fwer_holm[i] = mean(apply(holm, 1, function(x) {min(x) <= alpha[i]}))
fwer_hochberg[i] = mean(apply(hochberg, 1, function(x) {min(x) <= alpha[i]}))
}
fwer_holm_se = sqrt(fwer_holm * (1 - fwer_holm) / m)
fwer_hochberg_se = sqrt(fwer_hochberg * (1 - fwer_hochberg) / m)
Here at each nominal FWER from \(0\) to \(0.15\), we plot the empirical FWER, calculated from \(m = 2000\) independent simulation trials. Dotted lines indicate one standard error computed from binomial model \(= \sqrt{\hat{\text{FWER}}(1 - \hat{\text{FWER}}) / m}\).
plot(alpha, fwer_holm, pch = 1, xlab = "nominal FWER", ylab = "empirical FWER", xlim = c(0, max(alpha)), ylim = c(0, max(alpha)), cex = 0.75)
points(alpha, fwer_hochberg, col = "blue", pch = 19, cex = 0.25)
lines(alpha, fwer_holm - fwer_holm_se, lty = 3)
lines(alpha, fwer_holm + fwer_holm_se, lty = 3)
lines(alpha, fwer_hochberg + fwer_hochberg_se, lty = 3, col = "blue")
lines(alpha, fwer_hochberg - fwer_hochberg_se, lty = 3, col = "blue")
abline(0, 1, lty = 3, col = "red")
legend("topleft", c("Holm", "Hochberg"), col = c(1, "blue"), pch = c(1, 19))
Version | Author | Date |
---|---|---|
0f36d99 | LSun | 2017-12-21 |
2696cb2 | LSun | 2017-02-10 |
The results from Holm’s step-down and Hochberg’s step-up are almost the same for this simulated data set. They both give almost the same discoveries, although in theory Hochberg’s should be strictly more powerful than Holm’s. The agreement of both procedures may indicate that test statistics are indeed inflated for moderate observations but not extreme observations.
sessionInfo()
R version 3.4.3 (2017-11-30)
Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0 (64-bit)
Running under: macOS High Sierra 10.13.4
Matrix products: default
BLAS: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/3.4/Resources/lib/libRblas.0.dylib
LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/3.4/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib
locale:
[1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] workflowr_1.0.1 Rcpp_0.12.16 digest_0.6.15
[4] rprojroot_1.3-2 R.methodsS3_1.7.1 backports_1.1.2
[7] git2r_0.21.0 magrittr_1.5 evaluate_0.10.1
[10] stringi_1.1.6 whisker_0.3-2 R.oo_1.21.0
[13] R.utils_2.6.0 rmarkdown_1.9 tools_3.4.3
[16] stringr_1.3.0 yaml_2.1.18 compiler_3.4.3
[19] htmltools_0.3.6 knitr_1.20
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr 1.0.1