Comments on: Why microarray study conclusions are so often wrong

By: Personalized medicine — The Endeavour

Personalized medicine — The Endeavour — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:44:54 +0000

[...] Predicting height from genes Why microarray studies are often wrong [...]

By: Hard science, soft science, hardware, software — The Endeavour

Hard science, soft science, hardware, software — The Endeavour — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:02:09 +0000

[...] soft sciences get things wrong more often. Sciences such as biology and epidemiology — soft compared to physics, but hard compared to sociology — often get things [...]

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:07:08 +0000

I know this is a rather old blog entry, but since the paper by Wacholder has been cited by Abhijit, I wanted also to cite this strong criticism to Wacholder’s paper: Lucke JF, A critique of the false-positive report probability, Genet Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;33(2):145-50. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18720477).

By: Scientific results fading over time — The Endeavour

Scientific results fading over time — The Endeavour — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:16:37 +0000

[...] Why microarray study conclusions are so often wrong Popular research areas produce more false results Five criticisms of significance testing ? X [...]

By: John

John — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:26:04 +0000

The advantage of microarrays is that they’re cheap. If you do enough independent runs to make quality inferences, they’re no longer cheap.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:21:22 +0000

Why wouldn’t repeat runs, with some mod of sampling and procedure, weed out false positives?

By: Abhijit

Abhijit — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:36:21 +0000

You might also want to look at Wacholder, et al’s False Positive Report Probability (FPRP) (J Natl Cancer Inst, 2004 Mar 17;96(6):434-42), which is an attempt to directly address some of the issues you raise in a quasi-Bayesian framework.

By: Microarrays may be bad, but not that bad. « Suicyte Notes

Microarrays may be bad, but not that bad. « Suicyte Notes — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:14:33 +0000

[...] involves a lot of microarray data analysis. However, a series of recent blog posts [here, here and here] talk about microarray-related problems that differ so much from my own experiences that I cannot [...]

By: Dave Bridges

Dave Bridges — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:34:57 +0000

i’m new at this, but isnt this sort of problem the thing that false discovery rate adjusted p values (q values) is supposed to account for?

By: Reproducible Ideas » Blog Archive » Three reasons to distrust microarray results

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:29:52 +0000

[...] out perfectly, microarray experiment conclusions have a high probability of being incorrect for probabilistic reasons. Of course lab work and statistical analysis are not carried out perfectly. I went to a talk [...]