Biomedical subjects

Huey-miin Hsueh

Publications and source records attributed to Huey-miin Hsueh.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Analysis of variance components in gene expression data.

MOTIVATION: A microarray experiment is a multi-step process, and each step is a potential source of variation. There are two major sources of variation: biological variation and technical variation. This study presents a variance-components approach to investigating animal-to-animal, between-array, within-array and day-to-day variations for two data sets. The first data set involved estimation of technical variances for pooled control and pooled treated RNA samples. The variance components included between-array, and two nested within-array variances: between-section (the upper- and lower-sections of the array are replicates) and within-section (two adjacent spots of the same gene are printed within each section). The second experiment was conducted on four different weeks. Each week there were reference and test samples with a dye-flip replicate in two hybridization days. The variance components included week-to-week, animal-to-animal and between-array and within-array variances. RESULTS: We applied the linear mixed-effects model to quantify different sources of variation. In the first data set, we found that the between-array variance is greater than the between-section variance, which, in turn, is greater than the within-section variance. In the second data set, for the reference samples, the week-to-week variance is larger than the between-array variance, which, in turn, is slightly larger than the within-array variance. For the test samples, the week-to-week variance has the largest variation. The animal-to-animal variance is slightly larger than the between-array and within-array variances. However, in a gene-by-gene analysis, the animal-to-animal variance is smaller than the between-array variance in four out of five housekeeping genes. In summary, the largest variation observed is the week-to-week effect. Another important source of variability is the animal-to-animal variation. Finally, we describe the use of variance-component estimates to determine optimal numbers of animals, arrays per animal and sections per array in planning microarray experiments.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2003

Comparison of methods for estimating the number of true null hypotheses in multiplicity testing.

When a large number of statistical tests is performed, the chance of false positive findings could increase considerably. The traditional approach is to control the probability of rejecting at least one true null hypothesis, the familywise error rate (FWE). To improve the power of detecting treatment differences, an alternative approach is to control the expected proportion of errors among the rejected hypotheses, the false discovery rate (FDR). When some of the hypotheses are not true, the error rate from either the FWE- or the FDR-controlling procedure is usually lower than the designed level. This paper compares five methods used to estimate the number of true null hypotheses over a large number of hypotheses. The estimated number of true null hypotheses is then used to improve the power of FWE- or FDR-controlling methods. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to evaluate the performance of these methods. The lowest slope method, developed by Benjamini and Hochberg (2000) on the adaptive control of the FDR in multiple testing with independent statistics, and the mean of differences method appear to perform the best. These two methods control the FWE properly when the number of nontrue null hypotheses is small. A data set from a toxicogenomic microarray experiment is used for illustration.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Estimation of false discovery rates in multiple testing: application to gene microarray data.

Testing for significance with gene expression data from DNA microarray experiments involves simultaneous comparisons of hundreds or thousands of genes. If R denotes the number of rejections (declared significant genes) and V denotes the number of false rejections, then V/R, if R > 0, is the proportion of false rejected hypotheses. This paper proposes a model for the distribution of the number of rejections and the conditional distribution of V given R, V / R. Under the independence assumption, the distribution of R is a convolution of two binomials and the distribution of V / R has a noncentral hypergeometric distribution. Under an equicorrelated model, the distributions are more complex and are also derived. Five false discovery rate probability error measures are considered: FDR = E(V/R), pFDR = E(V/R / R > 0) (positive FDR), cFDR = E(V/R / R = r) (conditional FDR), mFDR = E(V)/E(R) (marginal FDR), and eFDR = E(V)/r (empirical FDR). The pFDR, cFDR, and mFDR are shown to be equivalent under the Bayesian framework, in which the number of true null hypotheses is modeled as a random variable. We present a parametric and a bootstrap procedure to estimate the FDRs. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to evaluate the performance of these two methods. The bootstrap procedure appears to perform reasonably well, even when the alternative hypotheses are correlated (rho = .25). An example from a toxicogenomic microarray experiment is presented for illustration.

Bayes Theorem↗

PubMed2002

Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data.

Assessment of therapeutic equivalence or non-inferiority between two medical diagnostic procedures often involves comparisons of the response rates between paired binary endpoints. The commonly used and accepted approach to assessing equivalence is by comparing the asymptotic confidence interval on the difference of two response rates with some clinical meaningful equivalence limits. This paper investigates two asymptotic test statistics, a Wald-type (sample-based) test statistic and a restricted maximum likelihood estimation (RMLE-based) test statistic, to assess equivalence or non-inferiority based on paired binary endpoints. The sample size and power functions of the two tests are derived. The actual type I error and power of the two tests are computed by enumerating the exact probabilities in the rejection region. The results show that the RMLE-based test controls type I error better than the sample-based test. To establish an equivalence between two treatments with a symmetric equivalence limit of 0.15, a minimal sample size of 120 is needed. The RMLE-based test without the continuity correction performs well at the boundary point 0. A numerical example illustrates the proposed procedures.

Biopsy↗