Dataset Information

Analyzing partially paired data: when can the unpaired portion(s) be safely ignored?

ABSTRACT: Partially paired data, either with incompleteness in one or both arms, are common in practice. For testing equality of means of two arms, practitioners often use only the portion of data with complete pairs and perform paired tests. Although such tests (referred as 'naive paired tests') are legitimate, their powers might be low as only partial data are utilized. The recently proposed 'P-value pooling methods', based on combining P-values from two tests, use all data, have reasonable type-I error control and good power property. While it is generally believed that 'P-value pooling methods' are superior to 'naive paired tests' in terms of power as the former use more data than the latter, no detailed power comparison has been done. This paper aims to compare powers of 'naive paired tests' and 'P-value pooling methods' analytically and our findings are counterintuitive, i.e. the 'P-value pooling methods' do not always outperform the naive paired tests in terms of power. Based on these results, we present guidance on how to select the best test for testing equality of means with partially paired data.

SUBMITTER: Qi Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9042157 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analyzing partially paired data: when can the unpaired portion(s) be safely ignored?

Qi Qianya Q Yan Li L Tian Lili L

Journal of applied statistics 20201223 6

Partially paired data, either with incompleteness in one or both arms, are common in practice. For testing equality of means of two arms, practitioners often use only the portion of data with complete pairs and perform paired tests. Although such tests (referred as 'naive paired tests') are legitimate, their powers might be low as only partial data are utilized. The recently proposed '<i>P</i>-value pooling methods', based on combining <i>P</i>-values from two tests, use all data, have reasonabl ...[more]

PMID: 35707111

Similar Datasets

Project description:Finding rewards and avoiding punishments are powerful goals of behavior. To maximize reward and minimize punishment, it is beneficial to learn about the stimuli that predict their occurrence, and decades of research have provided insight into the brain processes underlying such associative reinforcement learning. In addition, it is well known in experimental psychology, yet often unacknowledged in neighboring scientific disciplines, that subjects also learn about the stimuli that predict the absence of reinforcement. Here we evaluate evidence for both these learning processes. We focus on two study cases that both provide a baseline level of behavior against which the effects of associative learning can be assessed. Firstly, we report pertinent evidence from Drosophila larvae. A re-analysis of the literature reveals that through paired presentations of an odor A and a sugar reward (A+) the animals learn that the reward can be found where the odor is, and therefore show an above-baseline preference for the odor. In contrast, through unpaired training (A/+) the animals learn that the reward can be found precisely where the odor is not, and accordingly these larvae show a below-baseline preference for it (the same is the case, with inverted signs, for learning through taste punishment). In addition, we present previously unpublished data demonstrating that also during a two-odor, differential conditioning protocol (A+/B) both these learning processes take place in larvae, i.e., learning about both the rewarded stimulus A and the non-rewarded stimulus B (again, this is likewise the case for differential conditioning with taste punishment). Secondly, after briefly discussing published evidence from adult Drosophila, honeybees, and rats, we report an unpublished data set showing that relative to baseline behavior after truly random presentations of a visual stimulus A and punishment, rats exhibit memories of opposite valence upon paired and unpaired training. Collectively, the evidence conforms to classical findings in experimental psychology and suggests that across species animals associatively learn both through paired and through unpaired presentations of stimuli with reinforcement - with opposite valence. While the brain mechanisms of unpaired learning for the most part still need to be uncovered, the immediate implication is that using unpaired procedures as a mnemonically neutral control for associative reinforcement learning may be leading analyses astray.

Project description:One of the consequences in analyzing biological data from noisy sources, such as human subjects, is the sheer variability of experimentally irrelevant factors that cannot be controlled for. This holds true especially in metabolomics, the global study of small molecules in a particular system. While metabolomics can offer deep quantitative insight into the metabolome via easy-to-acquire biofluid samples such as urine and blood, the aforementioned confounding factors can easily overwhelm attempts to extract relevant information. This can mar potentially crucial applications such as biomarker discovery. As such, a new algorithm, called Selective Paired Ion Contrast (SPICA), has been developed with the intent of extracting potentially biologically relevant information from the noisiest of metabolomic data sets. The basic idea of SPICA is built upon redefining the fundamental unit of statistical analysis. Whereas the vast majority of algorithms analyze metabolomics data on a single-ion basis, SPICA relies on analyzing ion-pairs. A standard metabolomic data set is reinterpreted by exhaustively considering all possible ion-pair combinations. Statistical comparisons between sample groups are made only by analyzing the differences in these pairs, which may be crucial in situations where no single metabolite can be used for normalization. With SPICA, human urine data sets from patients undergoing total body irradiation (TBI) and from a colorectal cancer (CRC) relapse study were analyzed in a statistically rigorous manner not possible with conventional methods. In the TBI study, 3530 statistically significant ion-pairs were identified, from which numerous putative radiation specific metabolite-pair biomarkers that mapped to potentially perturbed metabolic pathways were elucidated. In the CRC study, SPICA identified 6461 statistically significant ion-pairs, several of which putatively mapped to folic acid biosynthesis, a key pathway in colorectal cancer. Utilizing support vector machines (SVMs), SPICA was also able to unequivocally outperform binary classifiers built from classical single-ion feature based SVMs.

Dataset Information

Analyzing partially paired data: when can the unpaired portion(s) be safely ignored?

Publications

Analyzing partially paired data: when can the unpaired portion(s) be safely ignored?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets