Advanced search
1 file | 1.70 MB Add to list

Frequentist versus Bayesian approaches to multiple testing

Author
Organization
Abstract
Multiple tests arise frequently in epidemiologic research. However, the issue of multiplicity adjustment is surrounded by confusion and controversy, and there is no uniform agreement on whether or when adjustment is warranted. In this paper we compare frequentist and Bayesian frameworks for multiple testing. We argue that the frequentist framework leads to logical difficulties, and is unable to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant multiplicity adjustments. We further argue that these logical difficulties resolve within the Bayesian framework, and that the Bayesian framework makes a clear and coherent distinction between relevant and irrelevant adjustments. We use Directed Acyclic Graphs to illustrate the differences between the two frameworks, and to motivate our arguments.
Keywords
Bonferroni correction, Data fishing, Multiple comparisons, Multiple tests, Posterior distribution, p-value, CAUSAL DIAGRAMS

Downloads

  • Sjà lander-Vansteelandt2019 Article FrequentistVersusBayesianAppro.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.70 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Sjölander, Arvid, and Stijn Vansteelandt. “Frequentist versus Bayesian Approaches to Multiple Testing.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, vol. 34, no. 9, 2019, pp. 809–21.
APA
Sjölander, A., & Vansteelandt, S. (2019). Frequentist versus Bayesian approaches to multiple testing. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 34(9), 809–821.
Chicago author-date
Sjölander, Arvid, and Stijn Vansteelandt. 2019. “Frequentist versus Bayesian Approaches to Multiple Testing.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 34 (9): 809–21.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Sjölander, Arvid, and Stijn Vansteelandt. 2019. “Frequentist versus Bayesian Approaches to Multiple Testing.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 34 (9): 809–821.
Vancouver
1.
Sjölander A, Vansteelandt S. Frequentist versus Bayesian approaches to multiple testing. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY. 2019;34(9):809–21.
IEEE
[1]
A. Sjölander and S. Vansteelandt, “Frequentist versus Bayesian approaches to multiple testing,” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 809–821, 2019.
@article{8618132,
  abstract     = {{Multiple tests arise frequently in epidemiologic research. However, the issue of multiplicity adjustment is surrounded by confusion and controversy, and there is no uniform agreement on whether or when adjustment is warranted. In this paper we compare frequentist and Bayesian frameworks for multiple testing. We argue that the frequentist framework leads to logical difficulties, and is unable to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant multiplicity adjustments. We further argue that these logical difficulties resolve within the Bayesian framework, and that the Bayesian framework makes a clear and coherent distinction between relevant and irrelevant adjustments. We use Directed Acyclic Graphs to illustrate the differences between the two frameworks, and to motivate our arguments.}},
  author       = {{Sjölander, Arvid and Vansteelandt, Stijn}},
  issn         = {{0393-2990}},
  journal      = {{EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY}},
  keywords     = {{Bonferroni correction,Data fishing,Multiple comparisons,Multiple tests,Posterior distribution,p-value,CAUSAL DIAGRAMS}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{9}},
  pages        = {{809--821}},
  title        = {{Frequentist versus Bayesian approaches to multiple testing}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00517-2}},
  volume       = {{34}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: