Multiple Comparisons in Candidate-Region Narratives

Abstract

Multiple Comparisons in Candidate-Region Narratives addresses a narrow but consequential interpretive problem: selective reporting turning exploratory signals into certainty. A bounded review of the literature is used to formulate, rather than claim to complete, an evaluation. The primary literature contributes a bounded result: only the supplied bibliographic scope supports discussion here; specific cohorts, variants, effect sizes, datasets, and analysis algorithms remain unverified. Searching many features, regions, tissues, or outcomes creates many opportunities for apparently attractive findings. The relevant search space includes choices made during interpretation, not only the tests visible in a final table. Prespecify families of comparisons and distinguish exploration from confirmation. Include negative candidates and report how ranking changes under alternative defensible analytic choices. The proposed comparison concerns regions, tissues, trait pairs; it would test whether the specific failure scenario is detected without erasing legitimate uncertainty. The original source's limits remain material: Without accessible methods and results, the work cannot substantiate named loci, causal direction, treatment targets, or clinical risk improvements in this review.