# Deciding whether follow-up studies have replicated findings in a preliminary large-scale "omics' study"

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.0606 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1310.0606/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2013.

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Defining Replicability of Prediction Rules](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01518/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We propose a formal method to declare that findings from a primary study have been replicated in a follow-up study. Our proposal is appropriate for primary studies that involve large-scale searches for rare true positives (i.e. needles in a haystack). Our proposal assigns an r-value to each finding; this is the lowest false discovery rate at which the finding can be called replicated. Examples are given and software is available.