  Increasing accessibility of data to researchers makes it possible to conduct
massive amounts of statistical testing. Rather than follow a carefully crafted
set of scientific hypotheses with statistical analysis, researchers can now
test many possible relations and let P-values or other statistical summaries
generate hypotheses for them. Genetic epidemiology field is an illustrative
case in this paradigm shift. Driven by technological advances, testing a
handful of genetic variants in relation to a health outcome has been abandoned
in favor of agnostic screening of the entire genome, followed by selection of
top hits, e.g., by selection of genetic variants with the smallest association
P-values. At the same time, nearly total lack of replication of claimed
associations that has been shaming the field turned to a flow of reports whose
findings have been robustly replicating. Researchers may have adopted better
statistical practices by learning from past failures, but we suggest that a
steep increase in the amount of statistical testing itself is an important
factor. Regardless of whether statistical significance has been reached, an
increased number of tested hypotheses leads to enrichment of smallest P-values
with genuine associations. In this study, we quantify how the expected
proportion of genuine signals (EPGS) among top hits changes with an increasing
number of tests. When the rate of occurrence of genuine signals does not
decrease too sharply to zero as more tests are performed, the smallest P-values
are increasingly more likely to represent genuine associations in studies with
more tests.
