Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

1.7K
Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
1.7K
Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

3.9K
Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
3.9K
Bonferroni Test01:10

Bonferroni Test

2.8K
The Bonferroni test is a statistical test named after Carlo Emilio Bonferroni, an Italian mathematician best known for Bonferroni inequalities. This statistical test is a type of multiple comparison test to determine which means are different than the rest. Bonferroni test can minimize the Type 1 error by reducing the significance level alpha, which otherwise increases with sample pairs.
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
2.8K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

1.5K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
1.5K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

224
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
224
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

6.3K
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
6.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Non-invasive physiological indicators of welfare in dairy cows.

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)·2026
Same author

Inference in generalized linear models with robustness to misspecified variances.

Journal of the American Statistical Association·2026
Same author

Associations between exposure to metals, chlorinated pesticides, and PCBs and differential leukocyte profiles in Flemish adolescents.

Environmental research·2025
Same author

Uncertainties in the Extrapolation of In Vitro Data in Human Risk Assessment: A Case Study of qIVIVE for Imazalil Using the Monte Carlo Risk Assessment Platform.

Chemical research in toxicology·2025
Same author

Editorial for the Special Collection "MCP 2022".

Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift·2025
Same author

Analysing postprandial amino acid responses in crossover studies with the aaresponse package for R.

Amino acids·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 24, 2025

Genome-wide Surveillance of Transcription Errors in Eukaryotic Organisms
09:30

Genome-wide Surveillance of Transcription Errors in Eukaryotic Organisms

Published on: September 13, 2018

9.6K

Improved family-wise error rate control in multiple equivalence testing.

Gwenaël G R Leday1, Jesse Hemerik1, Jasper Engel1

  • 1Wageningen University and Research, Biometris, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708, PB, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Food and Chemical Toxicology : an International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association
|July 5, 2023
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Equivalence testing for food safety can lead to false positives when testing many characteristics. New methods like Adaptive Bonferroni offer more powerful familywise error rate (FWER) control than Hochberg's method, improving accuracy in safety assessments.

Keywords:
Equivalence testingFamilywise errorFood safetyMultiple testingType I error

More Related Videos

Rare Event Detection Using Error-corrected DNA and RNA Sequencing
10:36

Rare Event Detection Using Error-corrected DNA and RNA Sequencing

Published on: August 3, 2018

12.1K
An Allele-specific Gene Expression Assay to Test the Functional Basis of Genetic Associations
10:17

An Allele-specific Gene Expression Assay to Test the Functional Basis of Genetic Associations

Published on: November 3, 2010

22.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 24, 2025

Genome-wide Surveillance of Transcription Errors in Eukaryotic Organisms
09:30

Genome-wide Surveillance of Transcription Errors in Eukaryotic Organisms

Published on: September 13, 2018

9.6K
Rare Event Detection Using Error-corrected DNA and RNA Sequencing
10:36

Rare Event Detection Using Error-corrected DNA and RNA Sequencing

Published on: August 3, 2018

12.1K
An Allele-specific Gene Expression Assay to Test the Functional Basis of Genetic Associations
10:17

An Allele-specific Gene Expression Assay to Test the Functional Basis of Genetic Associations

Published on: November 3, 2010

22.9K

Area of Science:

  • Agricultural Science
  • Statistical Science
  • Food Safety Science

Background:

  • Equivalence testing is crucial for food and feed safety assessments, enabling market approval by demonstrating crop characteristic equivalence.
  • Current univariate equivalence tests applied per analyte lack multiplicity correction, increasing Type I error rates (false claims of equivalence) when assessing multiple characteristics.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate and compare the power of different familywise error rate (FWER) controlling methods for equivalence testing in food safety.
  • To identify more powerful alternatives to Hochberg's method for managing multiple comparisons in equivalence assessments.

Main Methods:

  • Comparison of Hochberg's method with other FWER-controlling procedures, including Hommel's method and an adaptive Bonferroni method.
  • Application of these methods to two real-world compositional datasets.
  • Assessment and comparison using simulated data to evaluate performance under various scenarios.

Main Results:

  • Hommel's method is demonstrated to be at least as powerful as Hochberg's method.
  • An adaptive Bonferroni method, utilizing an estimator of non-equivalent characteristics, frequently shows substantially greater power than Hommel's method.
  • The adaptive Bonferroni method is particularly advantageous in food safety contexts where a high proportion of true equivalences is anticipated.

Conclusions:

  • Standard equivalence testing practices in food safety may be overly conservative due to uncorrected multiplicity.
  • Adaptive Bonferroni and Hommel's methods offer improved statistical power for FWER control in multi-analyte equivalence testing.
  • These advanced methods enhance the accuracy and efficiency of safety assessments for new food and feed products.