MultipleTesting.com: A tool for life science researchers for multiple hypothesis testing correction

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 9;16(6):e0245824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245824. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Scientists from nearly all disciplines face the problem of simultaneously evaluating many hypotheses. Conducting multiple comparisons increases the likelihood that a non-negligible proportion of associations will be false positives, clouding real discoveries. Drawing valid conclusions require taking into account the number of performed statistical tests and adjusting the statistical confidence measures. Several strategies exist to overcome the problem of multiple hypothesis testing. We aim to summarize critical statistical concepts and widely used correction approaches while also draw attention to frequently misinterpreted notions of statistical inference. We provide a step-by-step description of each multiple-testing correction method with clear examples and present an easy-to-follow guide for selecting the most suitable correction technique. To facilitate multiple-testing corrections, we developed a fully automated solution not requiring programming skills or the use of a command line. Our registration free online tool is available at www.multipletesting.com and compiles the five most frequently used adjustment tools, including the Bonferroni, the Holm (step-down), the Hochberg (step-up) corrections, allows to calculate False Discovery Rates (FDR) and q-values. The current summary provides a much needed practical synthesis of basic statistical concepts regarding multiple hypothesis testing in a comprehensible language with well-illustrated examples. The web tool will fill the gap for life science researchers by providing a user-friendly substitute for command-line alternatives.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Biological Science Disciplines / methods*
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Humans
  • Models, Theoretical*
  • Software
  • Statistics as Topic*

Grant support

The research was financed by the 2018-2.1.17-TET-KR-00001, 2020-1.1.6-JÖVŐ-2021-00013 and 2018-1.3.1-VKE-2018-00032 grants and by the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Programme (2020-4.1.1.-TKP2020) awarded to B. Gy, of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology in Hungary, within the framework of the Bionic thematic programme of the Semmelweis University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of ELIXIR Hungary (www.elixir-hungary.org). The commercial company A5 Genetics Ltd, Hungary provided support in the form of salaries for one author [B. W.], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific role of this author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.