Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004 96(6):419; doi:10.1093/jnci/96.6.419-a
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Japanese Translation
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content

© 2004 Oxford University Press

IN THIS ISSUE

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Assessing the Probability That a Positive Report is False

The genomic revolution presents exciting opportunities to learn about the etiology of cancer and other complex diseases. In a commentary, Wacholder et al. (p. 434) argue that the practice of using the P value alone to declare a finding to be statistically significant is no longer appropriate for deciding which of the many reports of associations between genetic variants and common cancer sites are truly significant. They propose, instead, that investigators use the false-positive report probability (FPRP)—the probability of no true association between a genetic variant and a disease, given a statistically significant finding—to evaluate whether . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Treatment Trends in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

HPV, Oral Cells, and Risk of Head and Neck Cancer

Letrozole and Tamoxifen in a Mouse Breast Cancer Model

Arsenic Exposure and Estrogen Signaling

Melatonin and Breast Cancer