0

I am reading an article from Statistics in Medicine ("Tutorial in biostatistics: multiple hypothesis testing in genomics"). For my question it is only relevant to know that $V$ denote the number of falsely rejected hypotheses in a set of $m$ hypotheses, $R$ the number of all rejected hypotheses and $Q:=V/R$ the false discovery proportion (for $R>0$ and $0$ else).

The authors state that since $0 \le Q \le 1$, $$E(Q) \le P(Q>0) = P(V>0).$$

That is, the false discovery rate ($E(Q)$) is always smaller or equal the family wise error rate ($P(Q>0)$). Why is this a sufficient proof?

tomka
  • 5,874
  • 3
  • 30
  • 71
  • 1
    see http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/59681/why-is-controlling-fdr-less-stringent-than-controlling-fwer/143852#143852 – Christoph Hanck Jun 28 '16 at 14:23
  • Interesting but somewhat abstract reasoning. It would make more sense to me to evaluate $E(V/R)$ directly and show it is smaller $1-P(V=0)$. I wonder whether that is possible at all. – tomka Jun 28 '16 at 14:47

0 Answers0