Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies.

Too many reports of associations between genetic variants and common cancer sites and other complex diseases are false positives. A major reason for this unfortunate situation is the strategy of declaring statistical significance based on a P value alone, particularly, any P value below.05. The false positive report probability (FPRP), the probability of no true association between a genetic variant and disease given a statistically significant finding, depends not only on the observed P value but also on both the prior probability that the association between the genetic variant and the disease is real and the statistical power of the test. In this commentary, we show how to assess the FPRP and how to use it to decide whether a finding is deserving of attention or "noteworthy." We show how this approach can lead to improvements in the design, analysis, and interpretation of molecular epidemiology studies. Our proposal can help investigators, editors, and readers of research articles to protect themselves from overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are not likely to signify a true association. An FPRP-based criterion for deciding whether to call a finding noteworthy formalizes the process already used informally by investigators--that is, tempering enthusiasm for remarkable study findings with considerations of plausibility.

[1]  G. Fraser Human Genome Epidemiology: A scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease , 2005 .

[2]  W. Browner,et al.  Are all significant P values created equal? The analogy between diagnostic tests and clinical research. , 1987, JAMA.

[3]  John S Witte,et al.  Point: population stratification: a problem for case-control studies of candidate-gene associations? , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[4]  N. Saitou,et al.  Synonymous mutations in the human dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) affect mRNA stability and synthesis of the receptor. , 2003, Human molecular genetics.

[5]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Empirical bayes methods and false discovery rates for microarrays , 2002, Genetic epidemiology.

[6]  P. McKeigue,et al.  For Personal Use. Only Reproduce with Permission from the Lancet Publishing Group. Problems of Reporting Genetic Associations with Complex Outcomes , 2022 .

[7]  Henry J. Lin,et al.  Pooled analysis and meta-analysis of glutathione S-transferase M1 and bladder cancer: a HuGE review. , 2002, American journal of epidemiology.

[8]  Jonathan A C Sterne,et al.  Sifting the evidence—what's wrong with significance tests? , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  E. Lander,et al.  Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[10]  Christine B Ambrosone,et al.  SNPs, haplotypes, and cancer: applications in molecular epidemiology. , 2004, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[11]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[12]  N. Risch Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium , 2000, Nature.

[13]  N E Morton,et al.  Tests and estimates of allelic association in complex inheritance. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  N Risch,et al.  The Future of Genetic Studies of Complex Human Diseases , 1996, Science.

[15]  T. Sellers Genetic ancestry and molecular epidemiology. , 2004, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[16]  C. Ulrich,et al.  Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and associations with cancer risk. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[17]  Chiara Sabatti,et al.  False discovery rate in linkage and association genome screens for complex disorders. , 2003, Genetics.

[18]  N. Rothman,et al.  NAT2 slow acetylation and bladder cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 22 case-control studies conducted in the general population. , 2000, Pharmacogenetics.

[19]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Replication validity of genetic association studies , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[20]  C. Weinberg,et al.  Reporting, appraising, and integrating data on genotype prevalence and gene-disease associations. , 2002, American journal of epidemiology.

[21]  Paul D P Pharoah,et al.  Variants in DNA double-strand break repair genes and breast cancer susceptibility. , 2002, Human molecular genetics.

[22]  N. Schork,et al.  Genetic analysis of case/control data using estimated haplotype frequencies: application to APOE locus variation and Alzheimer's disease. , 2001, Genome research.

[23]  D. Clayton,et al.  Betting odds and genetic associations. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  D. Botstein,et al.  Discovering genotypes underlying human phenotypes: past successes for mendelian disease, future approaches for complex disease , 2003, Nature Genetics.

[25]  Nathaniel Rothman,et al.  Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False: An Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies , 2004 .

[26]  J. Hirschhorn,et al.  A comprehensive review of genetic association studies , 2002, Genetics in Medicine.

[27]  D. Cox Another comment on the role of statistical methods. , 2001, Physical therapy.

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  BELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS , 1971, Pediatrics.

[29]  N. Rothman,et al.  Population stratification in epidemiologic studies of common genetic variants and cancer: quantification of bias. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  Stephen Chanock,et al.  Candidate Genes and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in the Study of Human Disease , 2002, Disease markers.

[31]  Steven Goodman Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The Bayes Factor , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[32]  C R Weinberg It's time to rehabilitate the P-value. , 2001, Epidemiology.

[33]  Nathaniel Rothman,et al.  Counterpoint: bias from population stratification is not a major threat to the validity of conclusions from epidemiological studies of common polymorphisms and cancer. , 2002, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[34]  K J Rothman,et al.  No Adjustments Are Needed for Multiple Comparisons , 1990, Epidemiology.

[35]  J. Chang-Claude,et al.  A common variant in BRCA2 is associated with both breast cancer risk and prenatal viability , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[36]  S. Henikoff,et al.  Accounting for human polymorphisms predicted to affect protein function. , 2002, Genome research.