Mathematics – Statistics Theory
Scientific paper
2009-11-18
Annals of Statistics 2009, Vol. 37, No. 6B, 3867-3892
Mathematics
Statistics Theory
Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-AOS697 the Annals of Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aos/) by the Institute of
Scientific paper
10.1214/09-AOS697
This paper revisits a meta-analysis method proposed by Pearson [Biometrika 26 (1934) 425--442] and first used by David [Biometrika 26 (1934) 1--11]. It was thought to be inadmissible for over fifty years, dating back to a paper of Birnbaum [J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 49 (1954) 559--574]. It turns out that the method Birnbaum analyzed is not the one that Pearson proposed. We show that Pearson's proposal is admissible. Because it is admissible, it has better power than the standard test of Fisher [Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1932) Oliver and Boyd] at some alternatives, and worse power at others. Pearson's method has the advantage when all or most of the nonzero parameters share the same sign. Pearson's test has proved useful in a genomic setting, screening for age-related genes. This paper also presents an FFT-based method for getting hard upper and lower bounds on the CDF of a sum of nonnegative random variables.
No associations
LandOfFree
Karl Pearson's meta-analysis revisited does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Karl Pearson's meta-analysis revisited, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Karl Pearson's meta-analysis revisited will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-241193