Paper detail

Deciding whether follow-up studies have replicated findings in a preliminary large-scale "omics' study"

We propose a formal method to declare that findings from a primary study have been replicated in a follow-up study. Our proposal is appropriate for primary studies that involve large-scale searches for rare true positives (i.e. needles in a haystack). Our proposal assigns an $r$-value to each finding; this is the lowest false discovery rate at which the finding can be called replicated. Examples are given and software is available.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 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.