Finally, we suggest that more advanced statistical methods and a more powerful p-value correction should be performed in future research of this topic.
Dose was treated as either a categorical or continuous variable during analysis, with the latter analysis leading to a more powerful test (p = 0.021 vs. p = 0.159).
The results indicated that a smaller p in the T ( p ) test was more powerful than a larger p in the T ( p ) test for equal and unequal sample sizes, with β ≤ 1 for the shifted location, scale, and location–scale parameters.
Our previous study suggested that a case-only HWD test was more powerful (with lower p values) than a case-control association analysis under a recessive model [ 7].
Since each of the three triplet mutations introduced into mP rrn was reported to increase transcription ([ 45]; see Methods section), it is reasonable to suggest that mP rrn created in this study is more powerful than native P rrn; however, additional quantitative experiments are required to validate this assertion.
Furthermore, we want to point out that there are many other methods can be used to combine p-values [ 22, 23]; it may also be possible to find a more powerful method to combine p-values for Illumina Array Methylation data.
Likewise, previous work suggests that, at least in some situations, more powerful tests will result if only p values below a certain threshold are combined (Zaykin et al 2002).
However, on Data Sets A and B (see Table 5), Test 3 clearly rejects the Poisson hypothesis for most of the directions of N1B and in this sense, Test 3 is more powerful than Test 2. Table 5 p-values of Test 3 on Data Sets A and B, with a subsample size ⌊ n 2 / 3 ⌋, where n is the number of trials.
This method was more powerful than the methods that combined p-values for all of the SNPs in the set, such as Fisher's method for combining p-values, and also more powerful than the method that controls FWER, such as Simes test [ 29].
This method assumes a generalized genetic model and is based on the selected disease allele to obtain a p-value from the more powerful one-sided test.
However, they all proved to be significantly (p < 0.05) stronger and more powerful than the backline players.
