Thanks. That is an excellent idea. Bill
-Original Message-
From: Spencer Graves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:01 PM
To: Dupont, William
Cc: Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen; r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R] FDR analyses: minimum number of features
Spencer Graves wrote:
Two thoughts on this:
1. Your FDR (Not Franklin Delano Roosevelt) sounds like another name
for Type I error rate.
It is certainly not the same as type I error rate. Type I error rate is
the proportion of true
nulls which are rejected, while the FDR is
: Dupont, William; r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R] FDR analyses: minimum number of features
Spencer Graves wrote:
Two thoughts on this:
1. Your FDR (Not Franklin Delano Roosevelt) sounds like
another
name for Type I error rate.
It is certainly not the same as type I
: Dupont, William; r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R] FDR analyses: minimum number of features
Spencer Graves wrote:
Two thoughts on this:
1. Your FDR (Not Franklin Delano Roosevelt) sounds like
another
name for Type I error rate.
It is certainly
Two thoughts on this:
1. Your FDR (Not Franklin Delano Roosevelt) sounds like another name
for Type I error rate. The definition of reasonably reliable FDRs
would seem to relate to the status of the literature on this issue among
researchers in genotyping. As more
Dear List,
We are planning a genotyping study to be analyzed using false discovery
rates (FDRs) (See Storey and Tibshirani PNAS 2003; 100:9440-5). I am
interested in learning if there is any consensus as to how many
features (ie. how many P values) need to be studied before reasonably
reliable
