Paper detail

Admissibility in Partial Conjunction Testing

Meta-analysis combines results from multiple studies aiming to increase power in finding their common effect. It would typically reject the null hypothesis of no effect if any one of the studies shows strong significance. The partial conjunction null hypothesis is rejected only when at least $r$ of $n$ component hypotheses are non-null with $r = 1$ corresponding to a usual meta-analysis. Compared with meta-analysis, it can encourage replicable findings across studies. A by-product of it when applied to different $r$ values is a confidence interval of $r$ quantifying the proportion of non-null studies. Benjamini and Heller (2008) provided a valid test for the partial conjunction null by ignoring the $r - 1$ smallest p-values and applying a valid meta-analysis p-value to the remaining $n - r + 1$ p-values. We provide sufficient and necessary conditions of admissible combined p-value for the partial conjunction hypothesis among monotone tests. Non-monotone tests always dominate monotone tests but are usually too unreasonable to be used in practice. Based on these findings, we propose a generalized form of Benjamini and Heller's test which allows usage of various types of meta-analysis p-values, and apply our method to an example in assessing replicable benefit of new anticoagulants across subgroups of patients for stroke prevention.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.