Skip Navigation



IJE Advance Access published online on May 3, 2008
International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dyn064
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/3/430    most recent
dyn064v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greenland, S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Greenland, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2008; all rights reserved.

Editorial

Multiple comparisons and association selection in general epidemiology

Sander Greenland

Department of Epidemiology and Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1772, USA

E-mail: lesdomes@ucla.edu

Accepted 12 March 2008

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In this issue of the journal, Prof. Jon Wakefield provides a contribution to the complex topic of screening genetic associations.1 My comments here are intended to clarify some points and outline connections of his discussion to broader problems, describing how methods such as Wakefield's can be appropriate in epidemiology beyond genetic research. I will also comment on a few aspects of his presentation related to technical issues. I will assume (as does Wakefield) that the reader is familiar with the terminology of Bayesian statistics2 as well that of conventional (frequentist) statistics.

I will start with a comment on interpretation of P-values, and then turn to the issue of multiple comparisons.

Proper interpretation of P-values and confidence intervals

As Wakefield mentions, for continuous distributions a valid frequentist P-value is uniformly distributed under the null hypothesis. From this fact, we can deduce that, under the null and assuming no bias, 0.3% of the P-values will be . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Multiple-comparisons problems are real—and common

Defensible methods for association selection

P-values = bad Bayes factors

Conclusion

Appendix


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
G. D. Smith
'Something funny seems to happen': J.B.S. Haldane and our chaotic, complex but understandable world
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2008; 37(3): 423 - 426.
[Full Text] [PDF]