mafdr: Interpreting Q values vs. BHFDR adjusted p-values

28 次查看(过去 30 天)
Using mafdr to produce false discovery rate adjusted Q values from lists of p-values has been working well for me with large datasets. The adjusted values appear reasonable. However, with very small datasets the Q values produced can be smaller than the initial p-values - particularly if many of the p-values are small. This seems wrong. As Q values are interpreted as p-values adjusted for the false discovery rate, shouldn't they always be larger than the initial p-value?
e.g.
if true
>> P
P =
0.0162 0.0322 0.0888 0.0495 0.0507 0.1583
>> [FDR, Q]=mafdr(P)
FDR =
0.0023 0.0023 0.0025 0.0023 0.0018 0.0037
Q =
0.0018 0.0018 0.0025 0.0018 0.0018 0.0037
end
A workaround for this is the 'BHFDR' option, which produces resonable looking adjustments to the p-values. It appears to use a different procedure to calculate the values
if true
>> mafdr(P,'BHFDR', true)
ans =
0.0761 0.0761 0.1065 0.0761 0.0761 0.1583
end
Does anyone know why this occurs? Am I misinterpreting the meaning of the Q values? Should I switch over entirely to the 'BHFDR' procedure for both large and small datasets? Best regards, Kevin
  5 个评论
Mango Wang
Mango Wang 2019-8-19
@Samaneh, They are quite similar. Based on my dataset, I calculate the correlation between fdr and q, The result is 1.

请先登录,再进行评论。

回答(2 个)

Mango Wang
Mango Wang 2019-8-19
编辑:Walter Roberson 2021-12-16
It seems FDR is suitable for the case when the dataset/hypothesis is very large due to the principle of the inherent method. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/false-discovery-rate check here for reference.

Thomas Alderson
Thomas Alderson 2021-12-13
编辑:Image Analyst 2021-12-15
This method sometimes produces q values smaller than p values, which is bad

类别

Help CenterFile Exchange 中查找有关 Dimensionality Reduction and Feature Extraction 的更多信息

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by