ArticleJournal of human genetics2006
Optimum two-stage designs in case-control association studies using false discovery rate.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene association studies in acute lung injury: replication and future direction.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2009Article
- A grid-search algorithm for optimal allocation of sample size in two-stage association studies.Journal of human genetics · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic association studies using case-control designs are often done to identify loci associated with disease susceptibility. These studies are often expensive to perform, due to a large number of genetic markers. Several types of two-stage designs are proposed and used from the point of cost effectiveness. We proposed to control the false discovery rate for multiple-testing correction in two-stage designs, using optimal sample sizes and criteria for selecting markers associated with a disease in each stage to minimize the cost of genotyping. The expected power and cost of two-stage designs were compared with those of one-stage designs, under the assumptions that the genetic markers are independent and total sample size is fixed. The results showed that the proposed two-stage procedure usually reduced the cost of genotyping by 40-60%, with a power similar to that of the one-stage designs. In addition, the sample size and selection criteria, which are optimized parameters, are defined as a function of a prior probability that marker-disease association is true. So, the effects of mis-specification of a prior probability on efficiency were also considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17003959What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.