-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Different p value estimates between bulk and single gene set testing #6
Comments
Dear Teng, Thanks for sharing your output and the well organized issue report. The differences you see may be attributable to the number of permutations being done to estimate the empirical p-value in the
Note that with 1000 permutations, the best we can estimate the true p-value is < 1/1000
With 10,000 permutations, we can get more precise to < 1/10,000.
Hope this helps! Stay healthy and safe, |
Hi Jean, Thanks for the detailed response! I actually tried to set |
Dear Teng, Thanks for sharing the geneset and logFC values you were using; very helpful in diagnostics. I've compared the p-values from
However, when
Thanks for the catch. For now, please ignore the visualized p-values from the Generally, since you are testing many gene sets, if you intend to display these results, I would actually strongly advise displaying the multiple-testing corrected q-values from bulk testing instead of raw p-values. Thanks again. Stay healthy and safe, |
Thanks for creating this tool, I'm finding it very useful for my analysis. I am trying to first screen a number of gene sets using the bulk option and then visualize specific ones that are significant. However, I noticed that for the same gene set the p value being shown on the plot is different from the bulk testing. I understand that these are empirical p values so the exact values may not match. However, they are different by an order of magnitude (see below). Do you have insights into why this is the case?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: