Two-group comparison of gene signatures: failure of conventional statistical methods and validation of a novel algorithm

Misuse of Statistical Methods in 10 Leading Chinese Medical Journals in 1998 and 2008

The Scientific World JOURNAL ◽

10.1100/2011/139494 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

pp. 2106-2114 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Shunquan Wu ◽

Zhichao Jin ◽

Xin Wei ◽

Qingbin Gao ◽

Jian Lu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Statistical Methods ◽

Case Series ◽

Group Comparison ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Common Error ◽

Multiple Group ◽

Case Series Study ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Pair Wise Comparison ◽

Made In

Statistical methods are vital to biomedical research. Our aim was to find out whether progress has been made in the last decade in the use of statistical methods in Chinese medical research. We reviewed 10 leading Chinese medical journals published in 1998 and in 2008. Regarding statistical methods, using a multiplet-test for multiple group comparison was the most common error in thet-test in both years, which significantly decreased in 2008. In contingency tables, no significant level adjustment for multiple comparison significantly decreased in 2008. In ANOVA, over a quarter of articles misused the method of multiple pair-wise comparison in both years, and no significant difference was seen between the two years. In the rank transformation nonparametric test, the error of using multiple pair-wise comparison for multiple group comparison became less common. Many mistakes were found in the randomised controlled trial (56.3% in 1998; 67.9% in 2008), non- randomised clinical trial (57.3%; 58.6%), basic science study (72.9%; 65.5%), case study or case series study (48.4%; 47.2%), and cross-sectional study (57.1%; 44.2%). Progress has been made in the use of statistical methods in Chinese medical journals, but much is yet to be done.

Download Full-text

Statistical Methods for Group Comparison

Optimal High-Throughput Screening ◽

10.1017/cbo9780511973888.008 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 111-153

Author(s):

Xiaohua Douglas Zhang

Keyword(s):

Statistical Methods ◽

Group Comparison

Download Full-text

Statistics and parallaxes

International Astronomical Union Colloquium ◽

10.1017/s0252921100073875 ◽

1978 ◽

Vol 48 ◽

pp. 7-29

Author(s):

T. E. Lutz

Keyword(s):

Experimental Design ◽

Statistical Methods ◽

Review Paper ◽

Systematic Errors ◽

Past Experience ◽

Random Errors ◽

Trigonometric Parallaxes ◽

Systematic And Random Errors

This review paper deals with the use of statistical methods to evaluate systematic and random errors associated with trigonometric parallaxes. First, systematic errors which arise when using trigonometric parallaxes to calibrate luminosity systems are discussed. Next, determination of the external errors of parallax measurement are reviewed. Observatory corrections are discussed. Schilt’s point, that as the causes of these systematic differences between observatories are not known the computed corrections can not be applied appropriately, is emphasized. However, modern parallax work is sufficiently accurate that it is necessary to determine observatory corrections if full use is to be made of the potential precision of the data. To this end, it is suggested that a prior experimental design is required. Past experience has shown that accidental overlap of observing programs will not suffice to determine observatory corrections which are meaningful.

Download Full-text