Closed testing has recently been shown to be optimal for simultaneous true discovery proportion control. It is, however, challenging to construct true discovery guarantee procedures in such a way that it focuses power on some feature sets chosen by users based on their specific interest or expertise. We propose a procedure that allows users to target power on prespecified feature sets, that is, \"focus sets.\" Still, the method also allows inference for feature sets chosen post hoc, that is, \"nonfocus sets,\" for which we deduce a true discovery lower confidence bound by interpolation. Our procedure is built from partial true discovery guarantee procedures combined with Holm\'s procedure and is a conservative shortcut to the closed testing procedure. A simulation study confirms that the statistical power of our method is relatively high for focus sets, at the cost of power for nonfocus sets, as desired. In addition, we investigate its power property for sets with specific structures, for example, trees and directed acyclic graphs. We also compare our method with AdaFilter in the context of replicability analysis. The application of our method is illustrated with a gene ontology analysis in gene expression data.

With each update of meta-analyses from living systematic reviews, treatment effects and their confidence intervals are recalculated. This often raises the question whether or not multiplicity is an issue and whether a method to adjust for multiplicity is needed. It seems that answering these questions is not that straightforward. We approach this matter by considering the context of systematic reviews and pointing out existing methods for handling multiplicity in meta-analysis. We conclude that multiplicity is not a relevant issue in living systematic reviews when they are planned with the aim to provide up-to-date evidence, without any direct control on the decision over future research. Multiplicity might be an issue, though, in living systematic reviews designed under a protocol involving a \"stopping decision\", which can be the case in living guideline development or in reimbursement decisions. Several appropriate methods exist for handling multiplicity in meta-analysis. Existing methods, however, are also associated with several technical and conceptual limitations, and could be improved in future methodological projects. To better decide whether an adjustment for multiplicity is necessary at all, authors and users of living systematic reviews should be aware of the context of the work and question whether there is a dependency between the effect estimates of the living systematic review and its stopping/updating or an influence on future research.

In immunology studies, flow cytometry is a commonly used multivariate single-cell assay. One key goal in flow cytometry analysis is to detect the immune cells responsive to certain stimuli. Statistically, this problem can be translated into comparing two protein expression probability density functions (pdfs) before and after the stimulus; the goal is to pinpoint the regions where these two pdfs differ. Further screening of these differential regions can be performed to identify enriched sets of responsive cells. In this paper, we model identifying differential density regions as a multiple testing problem. First, we partition the sample space into small bins. In each bin, we form a hypothesis to test the existence of differential pdfs. Second, we develop a novel multiple testing method, called TEAM (Testing on the Aggregation tree Method), to identify those bins that harbor differential pdfs while controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) under the desired level. TEAM embeds the testing procedure into an aggregation tree to test from fine- to coarse-resolution. The procedure achieves the statistical goal of pinpointing density differences to the smallest possible regions. TEAM is computationally efficient, capable of analyzing large flow cytometry data sets in much shorter time compared with competing methods. We applied TEAM and competing methods on a flow cytometry data set to identify T cells responsive to the cytomegalovirus (CMV)-pp65 antigen stimulation. With additional downstream screening, TEAM successfully identified enriched sets containing monofunctional, bifunctional, and polyfunctional T cells. Competing methods either did not finish in a reasonable time frame or provided less interpretable results. Numerical simulations and theoretical justifications demonstrate that TEAM has asymptotically valid, powerful, and robust performance. Overall, TEAM is a computationally efficient and statistically powerful algorithm that can yield meaningful biological insights in flow cytometry studies.

We consider the problem of multiple hypothesis testing when there is a logical nested structure to the hypotheses. When one hypothesis is nested inside another, the outer hypothesis must be false if the inner hypothesis is false. We model the nested structure as a directed acyclic graph, including chain and tree graphs as special cases. Each node in the graph is a hypothesis and rejecting a node requires also rejecting all of its ancestors. We propose a general framework for adjusting node-level test statistics using the known logical constraints. Within this framework, we study a smoothing procedure that combines each node with all of its descendants to form a more powerful statistic. We prove a broad class of smoothing strategies can be used with existing selection procedures to control the familywise error rate, false discovery exceedance rate, or false discovery rate, so long as the original test statistics are independent under the null. When the null statistics are not independent but are derived from positively-correlated normal observations, we prove control for all three error rates when the smoothing method is arithmetic averaging of the observations. Simulations and an application to a real biology dataset demonstrate that smoothing leads to substantial power gains.

Inferentially seamless 2/3 designs are increasingly popular in clinical trials. It is important to understand their relative advantages compared with separate phase 2 and phase 3 trials, and to understand the consequences of design choices such as the proportion of patients included in the phase 2 portion of the design. Extending previous work in this area, we perform a simulation study across multiple numbers of arms and efficacy response curves. We consider a design space crossing the choice of a separate versus seamless design with the choice of allocating 0%-100% of available patients in phase 2, with the remainder in phase 3. The seamless designs achieve greater power than their separate trial counterparts. Importantly, the optimal seamless design is more robust than the optimal separate program, meaning that one range of values for the proportion of patients used in phase 2 (30%-50% of the total phase 2/3 sample size) is nearly optimal for a wide range of response scenarios. In contrast, a percentage of patients used in phase 2 for separate trials may be optimal for some alternative scenarios but decidedly inferior for other alternative scenarios. When operationally and scientifically viable, seamless trials provide superior performance compared with separate phase 2 and phase 3 trials. The results also provide guidance for the implementation of these trials in practice.

The false discovery rate (FDR) is a widely used metric of statistical significance for genomic data analyses that involve multiple hypothesis testing. Power and sample size considerations are important in planning studies that perform these types of genomic data analyses. Here, we propose a three-rectangle approximation of a p-value histogram to derive a formula to compute the statistical power and sample size for analyses that involve the FDR. We also introduce the R package FDRsamplesize2, which incorporates these and other power calculation formulas to compute power for a broad variety of studies not covered by other FDR power calculation software. A few illustrative examples are provided. The FDRsamplesize2 package is available on CRAN.

Multiple testing has been a prominent topic in statistical research. Despite extensive work in this area, controlling false discoveries remains a challenging task, especially when the test statistics exhibit dependence. Various methods have been proposed to estimate the false discovery proportion (FDP) under arbitrary dependencies among the test statistics. One key approach is to transform arbitrary dependence into weak dependence and subsequently establish the strong consistency of FDP and false discovery rate under weak dependence. As a result, FDPs converge to the same asymptotic limit within the framework of weak dependence. However, we have observed that the asymptotic variance of FDP can be significantly influenced by the dependence structure of the test statistics, even when they exhibit only weak dependence. Quantifying this variability is of great practical importance, as it serves as an indicator of the quality of FDP estimation from the data. To the best of our knowledge, there is limited research on this aspect in the literature. In this paper, we aim to fill in this gap by quantifying the variation of FDP, assuming that the test statistics exhibit weak dependence and follow normal distributions. We begin by deriving the asymptotic expansion of the FDP and subsequently investigate how the asymptotic variance of the FDP is influenced by different dependence structures. Based on the insights gained from this study, we recommend that in multiple testing procedures utilizing FDP, reporting both the mean and variance estimates of FDP can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the study\'s outcomes.

Diagnostic accuracy studies assess the sensitivity and specificity of a new index test in relation to an established comparator or the reference standard. The development and selection of the index test are usually assumed to be conducted prior to the accuracy study. In practice, this is often violated, for instance, if the choice of the (apparently) best biomarker, model or cutpoint is based on the same data that is used later for validation purposes. In this work, we investigate several multiple comparison procedures which provide family-wise error rate control for the emerging multiple testing problem. Due to the nature of the co-primary hypothesis problem, conventional approaches for multiplicity adjustment are too conservative for the specific problem and thus need to be adapted. In an extensive simulation study, five multiple comparison procedures are compared with regard to statistical error rates in least-favourable and realistic scenarios. This covers parametric and non-parametric methods and one Bayesian approach. All methods have been implemented in the new open-source R package cases which allows us to reproduce all simulation results. Based on our numerical results, we conclude that the parametric approaches (maxT and Bonferroni) are easy to apply but can have inflated type I error rates for small sample sizes. The two investigated Bootstrap procedures, in particular the so-called pairs Bootstrap, allow for a family-wise error rate control in finite samples and in addition have a competitive statistical power.

Survival time is the primary endpoint of many randomized controlled trials, and a treatment effect is typically quantified by the hazard ratio under the assumption of proportional hazards. Awareness is increasing that in many settings this assumption is a priori violated, for example, due to delayed onset of drug effect. In these cases, interpretation of the hazard ratio estimate is ambiguous and statistical inference for alternative parameters to quantify a treatment effect is warranted. We consider differences or ratios of milestone survival probabilities or quantiles, differences in restricted mean survival times, and an average hazard ratio to be of interest. Typically, more than one such parameter needs to be reported to assess possible treatment benefits, and in confirmatory trials, the according inferential procedures need to be adjusted for multiplicity. A simple Bonferroni adjustment may be too conservative because the different parameters of interest typically show considerable correlation. Hence simultaneous inference procedures that take into account the correlation are warranted. By using the counting process representation of the mentioned parameters, we show that their estimates are asymptotically multivariate normal and we provide an estimate for their covariance matrix. We propose according to the parametric multiple testing procedures and simultaneous confidence intervals. Also, the logrank test may be included in the framework. Finite sample type I error rate and power are studied by simulation. The methods are illustrated with an example from oncology. A software implementation is provided in the R package nph.

Several methods in survival analysis are based on the proportional hazards assumption. However, this assumption is very restrictive and often not justifiable in practice. Therefore, effect estimands that do not rely on the proportional hazards assumption are highly desirable in practical applications. One popular example for this is the restricted mean survival time (RMST). It is defined as the area under the survival curve up to a prespecified time point and, thus, summarizes the survival curve into a meaningful estimand. For two-sample comparisons based on the RMST, previous research found the inflation of the type I error of the asymptotic test for small samples and, therefore, a two-sample permutation test has already been developed. The first goal of the present paper is to further extend the permutation test for general factorial designs and general contrast hypotheses by considering a Wald-type test statistic and its asymptotic behavior. Additionally, a groupwise bootstrap approach is considered. Moreover, when a global test detects a significant difference by comparing the RMSTs of more than two groups, it is of interest which specific RMST differences cause the result. However, global tests do not provide this information. Therefore, multiple tests for the RMST are developed in a second step to infer several null hypotheses simultaneously. Hereby, the asymptotically exact dependence structure between the local test statistics is incorporated to gain more power. Finally, the small sample performance of the proposed global and multiple testing procedures is analyzed in simulations and illustrated in a real data example.