. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 28.

Published in final edited form as: Biometrics. 2016 Apr 8;72(4):1206–1215. doi: 10.1111/biom.12523

Table 1.

The expected value of the FDP and recall quantities for EM and MCMC fitting algorithms at various FDR q values, from 250 replications of simulated data. Values in parentheses indicate the estimated standard deviation of FDP and recall. EM is slightly conservative at FDR values, while the MCMC algorithm is well calibrated. Both algorithms have low variability in the FDP, indicating that FDR control is tight. At modest FDR, both methods enjoy high sensitivity.

	EM		MCMC
q	E[FDP]	E[recall]	E[FDP]	E[recall]
.01	.006(sd .003)	.869 (sd .019)	.013 (sd .004)	.891 (sd .018)
.05	.036 (sd .007)	.923 (sd .014)	.052 (sd .008)	.935 (sd .014)
.1	.078 (sd .009)	.948 (sd .012)	.100 (sd .009)	.955 (sd .011)
.2	.172 (sd .010)	.973 (sd .008)	.197 (sd .010)	.976 (sd .008)