Abstract
Newly discovered true (non-null) associations often have inflated effects compared with the true effect sizes. I discuss here the main reasons for this inflation. First, theoretical considerations prove that when true discovery is claimed based on crossing a threshold of statistical significance and the discovery study is underpowered, the observed effects are expected to be inflated. This has been demonstrated in various fields ranging from early stopped clinical trials to genome-wide associations. Second, flexible analyses coupled with selective reporting may inflate the published discovered effects. The vibration ratio (the ratio of the largest vs. smallest effect on the same association approached with different analytic choices) can be very large. Third, effects may be inflated at the stage of interpretation due to diverse conflicts of interest. Discovered effects are not always inflated, and under some circumstances may be deflated-for example, in the setting of late discovery of associations in sequentially accumulated overpowered evidence, in some types of misclassification from measurement error, and in conflicts causing reverse biases. Finally, I discuss potential approaches to this problem. These include being cautious about newly discovered effect sizes, considering some rational down-adjustment, using analytical methods that correct for the anticipated inflation, ignoring the magnitude of the effect (if not necessary), conducting large studies in the discovery phase, using strict protocols for analyses, pursuing complete and transparent reporting of all results, placing emphasis on replication, and being fair with interpretation of results.
Keywords
Related Publications
Reproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals
Abstract Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has transformed our understanding of the human brain through well-replicated mapping of abilities to specific structures (for example, ...
Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria
Abstract I discuss the idea of using surrogate endpoints in the context of clinical trials to compare two or more treatments or interventions in respect to some ‘true’ endpoint,...
Unbiased estimation of odds ratios: combining genomewide association scans with replication studies
Abstract Odds ratios or other effect sizes estimated from genome scans are upwardly biased, because only the top‐ranking associations are reported, and moreover only if they rea...
Statistical Significance Versus Clinical Importance of Observed Effect Sizes: What Do P Values and Confidence Intervals Really Represent?
Effect size measures are used to quantify treatment effects or associations between variables. Such measures, of which >70 have been described in the literature, include unst...
A New Approach to the Problem of Multiple Comparisons in the Genetic Dissection of Complex Traits
Abstract Saturated genetic marker maps are being used to map individual genes affecting quantitative traits. Controlling the “experimentwise” type-I error severely lowers power ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2008
- Type
- review
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 640-648
- Citations
- 1474
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7