Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(7)
Using multiple penetrance models is a form of multiple testing, so we must increase the LOD score threshold used to declare significance.
We have not adjusted for multiple testing, so other comparisons are considered explorative.
The aim of our method is to avoid arbitrary multiple testing so that more risk biomarkers can be considered.
Finally, we tested a number of different associations but did not correct P values for multiple testing, so significance values should be interpreted with that in mind.
In addition, given that this was an exploratory analysis, we did not adjust our p-values for multiple testing so cautious interpretation of results is needed.
We did not adjust statistical significance to account for multiple testing so would urge caution in interpreting findings with p-values between 0.05 and 0.01.
Similar(53)
We found that 32 SNPs, about 3.8% of the 847 loci tested, had p-values <0.05 (uncorrected for multiple tests), so there was little evidence for selection.
In sequential testing, when positive results from the first analysis are assessed again with an independent test, the net effect is to increase the specificity and positive predictive value because each case is classified as positive on multiple tests (so false-positive results are rare).
Our study had relatively small numbers of cases and controls in some of the subgroups, which may have resulted in limited power to assess possible effect modification, there were also multiple tests so some of the observed variation may be due to chance.
Many women who test early purchase multiple tests so they can continue to verify negative tests as their expected period draws closer.
It should be pointed out that any adjustment for stratification does inflate the multiple testing correction so that, if genetically distant case and control samples are compared in an association study, the genome-wide significance threshold in some cases would even be as low as p<1×10−10.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com