Pearson s meta-analysis revisited

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Pearson s meta-analysis revisited"

Justin McCoy
5 years ago
Views:

1 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 1 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited in a microarray context Art B. Owen Department of Statistics Stanford University

2 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 2 Long story short 1) A microarray analysis needed a meta-analysis that accounts for directionality of effects 2) Pearson (1934) already had the same idea 3) And Birnbaum (1954) showed inadmissibility 4) But Birnbaum misread Pearson 5) The method is admissible & competitive vs Fisher (where we need it) 6) and the proof leads to something new that may be better

3 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 3 Karl Pearson quote Stigler (2008) recounting Karl Pearson s amazing productivity includes this from Stouffer (1958): You Americans would not understand, but I never answer a telephone or attend a committee meeting. Pearson was born in 1857

4 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 4 Two example problems Work with NIA and Kim lab AGEMAP Zahn et al. PLOS Is gene i correlated with age in tissue j of the mouse? For 8932 genes and 16 tissues We get a matrix of p-values fmri Benjamini & Heller Is brain location i activated in task j? Similar problems

5 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 5 AGEMAP goals Which genes are age related generically? They should show age relationship in multiple tissues Ideally the sign should be common too Too much to suppose that the slope is exactly the same Two tasks 1) Combine 16 p values into one decision per gene 2) Adjust for having tested 8932 genes Here We look at task 1) understanding that it is for screening For this talk: pretend tests are independent & ignore gene groups

6 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 6 Given a collection of p-values: We have n null hypotheses H 01,..., H 0n Multiple hypothesis testing We get n p-values p 1,..., p n p i for H 0i Decide which to reject, controlling false discoveries Meta-analysis We have 1 hypothesis H 0 We have m tests and m p-values for H 0 Combine p 1,..., p m into one decision Or combine m underlying test statistics

7 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 7 An age related gene 1) should have a statistically significant regression slope 2) in multiple tissues (not necessarily all) 3) predominantly of one sign 4) not necessarily a common slope The underlying model Regress expression for gene i and tissue j on age adjusting for sex. Y ijk = β 0ij + β 1ij Age k + β 1ij Sex k + ε ijk There were 40 animals... so 37 degrees of freedom responses (apart from some missing values)

8 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 8 ( m ) Refer 2 log j=1 p j to χ 2 (2m) Choose 1 tailed or 2 tailed p values Run Fisher vs β j < 0 run again vs β j > 0 use whichever one tailed test is most extreme Fisher s test K. Pearson s test What we get 1) Strong preference for concordant alternatives 2) We don t have to know the direction a priori 3) Still have some power if one test is discordant Pearson gets better power vs concordant alternatives and less power vs discordant.

9 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 9 Notation for 1 gene Parameters: β 1 β m Estimates: ˆβ1 ˆβm Obs. Values: ˆβobs 1 ˆβobs m Null hypothesis H 0,j : β j = 0 Alternative H L,j : β j < 0 H R,j : β j > 0 H C,j : β j 0 p value Pr( ˆβ j Pr( ˆβ j Pr( ˆβ j ˆβ obs j β j = 0 ) p j ˆβ obs j β j = 0 ) 1 p j ˆβ obs j β j = 0 ) p j = 2 min( p j, 1 p j )

10 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 10 Hypotheses on β = (β 1,..., β m ) Null H 0 : β = 0 Left orthant H L : β (, 0] m {0} Right orthant H R : β [0, ) m {0} Any H A : β 0 For > 0 In screening, we don t know whether to use H L or H R We prefer β = ±(,,..., ) to most β = (±, ±,..., ± ) But β = (,,...,, ) or (,,...,, 0) is also interesting So we use H A and a test with more power in H L and H R than elsewhere

11 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 11 Test statistics Fisher s test, 3 ways ( m Q L = 2 log j=1 p j ) ( m ) Q R = 2 log (1 p j ) j=1 ( m ) Q C = 2 log p j j=1 For m = 1 Q U = Q C but not for m > 1 Pearson s test Q U max(q L, Q R ) Mnemonic: U for undirected

12 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 12 Null distributions Q L, Q R, Q C χ 2 (2m) Via associated random variables, we find Pr ( Q U > x ) = Pr ( Q L > x ) + Pr ( Q R > x ) Pr ( Q L > x & Q R > x ) 2 Pr ( Q L > x ) Pr ( Q L > x ) 2 So Bonferroni is quite sharp for small α α Pr ( Q U χ 2,1 α/2 ) α 2 (2m) α 4 For α =.01, the level is in [ , 0.01]

13 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 13 Stouffer et al (1949) test statistics Under H 0 Z j = Φ 1 ( p j ) N(0, 1) Reject H 0 for large S S L = 1 m m j=1 S R = 1 m m j=1 S C = 1 m m j=1 Φ 1 (1 p j ) Φ 1 ( p j ) S U = max(s L, S R ) Φ 1 ( p j ) Stouffer test is mostly a straw man Though S U advocated by Whitlock (2005)

14 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 14 Meta-analysis refresher Key ref: Hedges and Olkin (1985) We have 1 hypothesis H 0 p values p 1,..., p m indep U(0, 1) under H 0 There is no unique best way to combine them (Birnbaum 1954) Condition 1 If H 0 is rejected for any given (p 1,..., p m ) then it will also be rejected for all (p 1,..., p m) such that p j p j for j = 1,..., m. Birnbaum shows that any combination method which satisfies Condition 1 is admissible.

15 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 15 Meta-analysis geometry min(p 1, p 2 ) max(p 1, p 2 ) Fisher Stouffer x axis is p 1 y axis is p 2 Blue for α = 0.1 rejection region They all satisfy Condition 1 min is due to Tippett 1931 max is due to Wilkinson 1951

16 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 16 Geometry again min(p 1, p 2 ) max(p 1, p 2 ) Fisher Stouffer Top row coords (p 1, p 2 ) bottom row coords ( p 1, p 2 )

17 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 17 Undirected tests Fisher Q U Stouffer S U Rejection regions in one tailed ( p 1, p 2 ) coords Thicker rejection region for coordinated alternatives Stouffer allows one p j to veto the others

18 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 18 A more stringent admissibility Tippet and Wilkinson are optimal at some alternatives hence admissible Some alternatives are far fetched For ˆβ j in exponential families Birnbaum Condition 2: Admissibility convex acceptance region for ( ˆβ 1,..., ˆβ m ) In a world of Gaussian data ˆβ j N (β j, σ 2 /n j ) p j = Φ( n j ˆβj /σ) ˆβ j = Φ 1 ( p j ) σ/ n j regions in p j regions in ˆβ j

19 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 19 Birnbaum s result Reject for small Q B Get non convex acceptance regions Hence inadmissible test Quite right, but not Pearson s proposal ( m ) Q B = 2 log (1 p j ) j=1 What went wrong χ 2 (2m) Birnbaum 1954 misread Egon Pearson (1938) describing Karl Pearson (1934) Two problems 1) 1 vs 2 tailed p values mixed up 2) the word or misinterpreted

20 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 20 Acceptance regions Q C Q U Q L Q B x axis is ˆβ 1 & y axis is ˆβ 2 Blue curve = rejection boundary Dot (origin) is in acceptance region for H 0 Admissible = dot in convex region Pearson s Q U region looks convex Of course it is! Intersect Q L and Q R regions

21 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 21 Theorem 1 For ˆβ 1,..., ˆβ m R m let ( Q U = max 2 log Admissibility of Q U m j=1 Φ( ˆβ j ), 2 log m j=1 ) Φ( ˆβ j ). Then {( ˆβ 1,..., ˆβ m ) Q U < q} is convex so that Pearson s test is admissible in the exponential family context, for Gaussian data. 1) ϕ(t) is log concave Ideas of proof 2) so therefore are Φ(t) and Φ( t) Boyd and Vandenberge 3) log(log concave) is convex 4) sum of convex is convex 5) max of convex is convex these steps apply in other settings too

22 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 22 Marden (1985) For Z j = Φ 1 ( p j ) Likelihood ratio tests Left, right, and center versions Λ L = Λ R = Λ C = m max(0, Z j ) 2 j=1 m max(0, Z j ) 2 j=1 m j=1 Z 2 j New one Λ U = max(λ L, Λ R ) Admissible, favors concordant alternatives, Bonferroni fairly tight

23 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 23 Undirected LRT vs Fisher in ( p 1, p 2 ) Λ U Q U Λ U will catch more discordant tests Q U has more power for concordant tests

24 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 24 More acceptance regions Two Gaussian variables: Und. Likelihood ratio Λ U Und. Fisher Q U Stouffer S U

25 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 25 Alternatives of interest Most β j either zero or of common sign (β 1,..., β m ) R m Simpler special cases: each β j {0, } > 0

26 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 26 Power of tests k nonzero {}}{ β = ±(,...,, 0,..., 0) H }{{} A R m ˆβ N (β, Im ) m k zero Power Delta m = 16 k {2, 4, 8, 16} Q U Λ U Λ C = m j=1 ˆβ 2 j

27 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 27 Scale to k k nonzero {}}{ β = ±( k,..., k, 0,..., 0) H }{{} A R m ˆβ N (β, Im ) m k zero Choose k so j ˆβ 2 j has power 0.8 at α = 0.01 Power Number nonzero Q U Λ U S U S C

28 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 28 One negative k 1 nonzero {}}{ β = ±( k, k,..., k, 0,..., 0) H }{{} A R m ˆβ N (β, Im ) m k zero Choose k so j ˆβ 2 j has power 0.8 at α = 0.01 Power Number nonzero Q U Λ U S U S C

29 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 29 Computing the power e.g. Q L = m log ( Φ( p j ) ) j=1 A sum of independent random variables, distns F j under H A Get distribution by convolution (FFT) Monahan (2001) convolves characteristic functions New (?) alternative Get Discrete CDFs F j F j F + j (stochastic inequality) Support on grid {0, η, 2η,..., (N 1)η, + } η > 0 When convolving upper bounds, round overflow up to + When convolving lower bounds, round overflow down to (N 1)η After convolution m j=1 F j L(Q L ) m j=1 F + j We get 100% confidence, finite width

30 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 30 Recommendations All j same sign = S U = j ˆβ j recommended Most Many j same sign = Q U = max(q L, Q R ) recommended j same sign = Λ U = max(λ L, Λ R ) recommended

31 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 31 Extensive simulation Fisher-Pearson Q U has better precision-recall than S U or ˆβ2 j for finding truly age related genes in a simulation where we know which ones are related with β = (,...,, 0,..., 0) and resampled residuals No free lunch Increased power for concordant comes with decreased power for discordant If we wanted to We could design a test that preferred discordant results or concordant within subgroups

32 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 32 Some results, for 9 tissues Pool via QC at level Num. of neg coef at 0.05 Num. of pos coef at Pool via QU at level Num. of neg coef at 0.05 Num. of pos coef at 0.05 Left shows genes found via Q C right via Q U each circle is one gene (Expect genes by chance) x axis is # tissues with p j < y axis is # tissues with p j > Q U pulls up more unanimous genes (269 vs 216), fewer split decisions, fewer total

33 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 33 1) Pick a prior on β A more principled approach 2) Quantify the relative value of split decisions vs unanimous findings 3) Find a test to optimize expected value of discoveries Steps 1 and 2 look harder than 3

34 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 34 Simes test regions p = min 1 j m m j p (j) U(0, 1) Under H 0 p = min(2p (1), p (2) ) for m = 2 C L T x axis is ˆβ 1 y axis is ˆβ 2 95% regions

35 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 35 Partial conjunction hypotheses Benjamini and Heller (2007) Alt. is only interesting if r or more of β j 0 Null and alternative H 0r : m 1 βj 0 < r H Cr : j=1 m 1 βj 0 r j=1 NB: the null is composite for r > 1, e.g {0} and the axes when r = 2 Ignore the most significant r 1 p values combine the rest Test statistics

36 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 36 Partial conjunction test statistics p (1) p (2) p (m) indep of p (1) p (2) p (m) Fisher style ( m 2 log j=r p (j) ) ( m 2 log j=r p (r) ) (m r+1 ) 2 log (1 p (r) ) j=1

37 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 37 Partial conjunction test statistics p (1) p (2) p (m) indep of p (1) p (2) p (m) Fisher style ( m 2 log j=r p (j) ) ( m 2 log j=r p (r) ) Stouffer style (m r+1 ) 2 log (1 p (r) ) j=1 m Φ 1 (p (j) ) m Φ 1 ( p (j) ) m r+1 Φ 1 (1 p (j) ) j=r j=r j=1

38 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 38 Partial conjunction test statistics p (1) p (2) p (m) indep of p (1) p (2) p (m) Fisher style ( m 2 log j=r p (j) ) ( m 2 log j=r p (r) ) Stouffer style (m r+1 ) 2 log (1 p (r) ) j=1 m Φ 1 (p (j) ) m Φ 1 ( p (j) ) m r+1 Φ 1 (1 p (j) ) j=r j=r j=1 Simes style min r j m m r + 1 j r + 1 p (j) min r j m m r + 1 j r + 1 p (j) min r j m m r + 1 j r + 1 (1 p (m j+1)) worth considering LRT and undirected versions

39 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 39 Partial conjunction regions C L U For m = 2 and r = 2 need both significant Simes/Fisher/Stouffer collapse into one p (r) p (m) is just p (2) { } (β 1, β 0 ) β 1 = 0 or β 2 = 0 Null is

40 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 40 Next steps Partial conjunction tests have nonconvex acceptance regions So they re not suited to a point null They were not motivated by that null either So how to pick good tests for this setting? Or rule out bad ones?

41 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 41 Acknowledgments Stuart Kim and Jacob Zahn for many discussions about testing Ingram Olkin and John Marden for comments on meta-analysis NSF for support Nancy Zhang, Ed George, Adam Greenberg

42 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 42 Quotes Given time, here s the history of the mixup. More details in paper Karl Pearson s Meta-Analysis Revisited Annals of Statistics, (2009)

43 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 43 Birnbaum (1954) p 562 Quote Karl Pearson s method: reject H 0 if and only if (1 u 1 )(1 u 2 ) (1 u k ) c, where c is a predetermined constant corresponding to the desired significance level. In applications, c can be computed by a direct adaptation of the method used to calculate the c used in Fisher s method. Upshot In our notation (1 u 1 )(1 u 2 ) (1 u k ) is m j=1 (1 p j). It is clear from his Figure 4 that it does not mean m j=1 (1 p j). Birnbaum does not cite any of Karl Pearson s papers. Instead he cites Egon Pearson

44 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 44 E. Pearson (1938) p 136 Quote Following what may be described as the intuitional line of approach, K. Pearson (1933) suggested as suitable test criterion one or other of the products Q 1 = y 1 y 2 y n, or Q 1 = (1 y 1 )(1 y 2 ) (1 y n ). Upshot In our notation Q 1 = m j=1 p j and Q 1 = m j=1 (1 p j). E. Pearson cites K. Pearson s 1933 paper, although it appears that he should have cited the 1934 paper instead, because the former has only Q 1, while the latter has Q 1 and Q 1. or or or K. Pearson s or meant try them both and take the more extreme. A. Birnbaum s or meant try either of them one at a time. He also used two-tailed p j where Pearson had one-tailed p j.

45 Pearson s meta-analysis revisited 45 Hedges & Olkin (1985) Several other functions for combining p-values have been proposed. In 1933 Karl Pearson suggested combining p-values via the product (1 p 1 )(1 p 2 ) (1 p k ). Other functions of the statistics p i = Min{p i, 1 p i }, i = 1,..., k, were suggested by David(1934) for the combination of two-sided test statistic, which treat large and small values of the p i symmetrically. Neither of these procedures has a convex acceptance region, so these procedures are not admissible for combining test statistics from the one-parameter exponential family. Upshot The complaint vs Q U may be stuck in the literature for a while. Birnbaum points out that finding something inadmissible does not mean it will be easy to find the thing that beats it.

By Art B. Owen 1 Stanford University

By Art B. Owen 1 Stanford University The Annals of Statistics 2009, Vol. 37, No. 6B, 3867 3892 DOI: 10.1214/09-AOS697 c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2009 KARL PEARSON S META-ANALYSIS REVISITED arxiv:0911.3531v1 [math.st] 18 Nov 2009