The future of indirect evidence

DOI10.1214/09-STS308MaRDI QIDQ903283zbMATH OpenWikidataFDO

Authors Bradley Efron

Publication date 5 January 2016

Published in Statistical Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1161, https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1290175835

zbMATH Keywords

statistical learningeffect sizefalse discovery ratesJames-SteinBayesian and frequentistBenjamini-Hochbergexperience of others

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Bayesian inference (62F15) Foundational topics in statistics (62A99) Paired and multiple comparisons; multiple testing (62J15) History of statistics (62-03) Development of contemporary mathematics (01A65)

Abstract: Familiar statistical tests and estimates are obtained by the direct observation of cases of interest: a clinical trial of a new drug, for instance, will compare the drug's effects on a relevant set of patients and controls. Sometimes, though, indirect evidence may be temptingly available, perhaps the results of previous trials on closely related drugs. Very roughly speaking, the difference between direct and indirect statistical evidence marks the boundary between frequentist and Bayesian thinking. Twentieth-century statistical practice focused heavily on direct evidence, on the grounds of superior objectivity. Now, however, new scientific devices such as microarrays routinely produce enormous data sets involving thousands of related situations, where indirect evidence seems too important to ignore. Empirical Bayes methodology offers an attractive direct/indirect compromise. There is already some evidence of a shift toward a less rigid standard of statistical objectivity that allows better use of indirect evidence. This article is basically the text of a recent talk featuring some examples from current practice, with a little bit of futuristic speculation.

Recommendations

• Comment: How should indirect evidence be used?
• Comment: ``Microarrays, empirical Bayes and the two-groups model
• The role of empirical Bayes methodology as a leading principle in modern medical statistics
• Microarrays, empirical Bayes and the two-groups model
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 89426

Cites work

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1687015 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3122730 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 720689 (Why is no real title available?)
• Admissible Estimators, Recurrent Diffusions, and Insoluble Boundary Value Problems
• Empirical Bayes estimates for large-scale prediction problems
• False Discovery Rate–Adjusted Multiple Confidence Intervals for Selected Parameters
• Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing
• Microarrays, empirical Bayes and the two-groups model
• R. A. Fisher in the 21st century. Invited paper presented at the 1996 R. A. Fisher lecture. (With comments).
• Robbins, empirical Bayes and microarrays
• Simultaneous inference: when should hypothesis testing problems be combined?

Cited in

(11)

• A predictive approach to measuring the strength of statistical evidence for single and multiple comparisons
• Bayes multiple decision functions
• Emerging topics and challenges for statistical analysis and data mining
• Finding causative genes from high-dimensional data: an appraisal of statistical and machine learning approaches
• Large-scale multiple hypothesis testing with the normal-beta prime prior
• Interaction screening for high-dimensional heterogeneous data via robust hybrid metrics
• A note on the comparison of the Bayesian and frequentist approaches to estimation
• Comment: How should indirect evidence be used?
• The application of Bayesian method in estimating heterogeneity of treatment effect
• Confidence distributions and related themes
• Smaller p-values via indirect information

This page was built for publication: The future of indirect evidence

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q903283)