This framework evaluates six methods for genomic data, suggesting the hybrid method improves detection, highlighting the trade-off between false positives and negatives.
Multiple Hypothesis Testing presents challenges due to increased false discoveries when conducting statistical tests simultaneously. Despite the pro-posal of novel correction techniques, the procedure of selecting the most suit-able method has remained a black box. The trade-off that arises from con-trolling false positives and negatives through different correction techniques underlines the need for a cohesive framework. This study addresses the above challenges with a special focus on gene expression data and evaluates six widely used Multiple Hypothesis Testing (MHT) methods, namely, Bonferroni, Holm, sequential goodness of fit (SGoF), Benjamini-Hochberg, Benjamini-Yekutieli, and Storey’s Q-values, across different scenarios to compare two in-dependent groups. Our results show that Storey’s Q-value performs well with large effect sizes, whereas SGoF excels in low-effect scenarios. However, the Bonferroni and Holm methods offer high precision owing to the strict control of false positives. Recognizing the limitations of relying on a single method, we introduce a novel Weighted Hybrid Method (WHM), a decision-support framework that allows users to navigate between approaches rather than serv-ing as a new statistical test. An innovative Significant Index Plot (SIP) is un-veiled to assist in the detection of significant hypotheses across different meth-ods. The framework was tested on four genomic datasets: gene expression in multiple sclerosis (GSE21942), myelodysplastic syndrome (GSE61853), alcohol-related gene expression (GSE52553), and age-related corneal tran-scriptomes (GSE58315), extending the usage to enable independent hypoth-esis weighting. A novel Python library, MultiDST, and a web interface were developed to enable researchers to apply the framework efficiently, improving the transparency of their findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ouchithya et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: