↓ Skip to main content

Permutation – based statistical tests for multiple hypotheses

Overview of attention for article published in Source Code for Biology and Medicine, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 127)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Permutation – based statistical tests for multiple hypotheses
Published in
Source Code for Biology and Medicine, October 2008
DOI 10.1186/1751-0473-3-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anyela Camargo, Francisco Azuaje, Haiying Wang, Huiru Zheng

Abstract

Genomics and proteomics analyses regularly involve the simultaneous test of hundreds of hypotheses, either on numerical or categorical data. To correct for the occurrence of false positives, validation tests based on multiple testing correction, such as Bonferroni and Benjamini and Hochberg, and re-sampling, such as permutation tests, are frequently used. Despite the known power of permutation-based tests, most available tools offer such tests for either t-test or ANOVA only. Less attention has been given to tests for categorical data, such as the Chi-square. This project takes a first step by developing an open-source software tool, Ptest, that addresses the need to offer public software tools incorporating these and other statistical tests with options for correcting for multiple hypotheses. This study developed a public-domain, user-friendly software whose purpose was twofold: first, to estimate test statistics for categorical and numerical data; and second, to validate the significance of the test statistics via Bonferroni, Benjamini and Hochberg, and a permutation test of numerical and categorical data. The tool allows the calculation of Chi-square test for categorical data, and ANOVA test, Bartlett's test and t-test for paired and unpaired data. Once a test statistic is calculated, Bonferroni, Benjamini and Hochberg, and a permutation tests are implemented, independently, to control for Type I errors. An evaluation of the software using different public data sets is reported, which illustrates the power of permutation tests for multiple hypotheses assessment and for controlling the rate of Type I errors. The analytical options offered by the software can be applied to support a significant spectrum of hypothesis testing tasks in functional genomics, using both numerical and categorical data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 3 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 158 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 24%
Student > Master 20 11%
Other 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 26 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 11%
Neuroscience 19 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 6%
Psychology 10 6%
Other 40 23%
Unknown 34 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2022.
All research outputs
#12,871,062
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Source Code for Biology and Medicine
#50
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,835
of 91,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Source Code for Biology and Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them