IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125383.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

I Just Ran a Thousand Analyses: Benefits of Multiple Testing in Understanding Equivocal Evidence on Gene-Environment Interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Vera E Heininga
  • Albertine J Oldehinkel
  • René Veenstra
  • Esther Nederhof

Abstract

Background: In psychiatric genetics research, the volume of ambivalent findings on gene-environment interactions (G x E) is growing at an accelerating pace. In response to the surging suspicions of systematic distortion, we challenge the notion of chance capitalization as a possible contributor. Beyond qualifying multiple testing as a mere methodological issue that, if uncorrected, leads to chance capitalization, we advance towards illustrating the potential benefits of multiple tests in understanding equivocal evidence in genetics literature. Method: We focused on the interaction between the serotonin-transporter-linked promotor region (5-HTTLPR) and childhood adversities with regard to depression. After testing 2160 interactions with all relevant measures available within the Dutch population study of adolescents TRAILS, we calculated percentages of significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • Vera E Heininga & Albertine J Oldehinkel & René Veenstra & Esther Nederhof, 2015. "I Just Ran a Thousand Analyses: Benefits of Multiple Testing in Understanding Equivocal Evidence on Gene-Environment Interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125383
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125383
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125383&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125383?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramal Moonesinghe & Muin J Khoury & A Cecile J W Janssens, 2007. "Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(2), pages 1-4, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Lars Ole Schwen & Sabrina Rueschenbaum, 2018. "Ten quick tips for getting the most scientific value out of numerical data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Florian Englmaier & Andreas Roider & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "The Role of Communication of Performance Schemes: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4061-4080, December.
    4. Armel Lefebvre & Marco Spruit, 2023. "Laboratory Forensics for Open Science Readiness: an Investigative Approach to Research Data Management," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 381-399, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125383. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.