ArticleHuman heredity2007
Dealing with missing data in family-based association studies: a multiple imputation approach.
Article in Human heredity, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymorphisms in the GNAS Gene as Predictors of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the DISCOVERY Trial and Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2016Article
- Using Incomplete Trios to Boost Confidence in Family Based Association Studies.Frontiers in genetics · 2016Article
- On the meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies: a robust and efficient approach to combine population and family-based studies.Human heredity · 2012Article
- On combining triads and unrelated subjects data in candidate gene studies: an application to data on testicular cancer.Human heredity · 2009Article
- Estimation and testing of gene-environment interactions in family-based association studies.Genomics · 2009Article
- A new method to account for missing data in case-parent triad studies.Human heredity · 2009Article
- Likelihood-based association analysis for nuclear families and unrelated subjects with missing genotype data.Human heredity · 2008Article
- Efficiency of multiple imputation to test for association in the presence of missing data.BMC proceedings · 2007Article
- Dealing with missing phase and missing data in phylogeny-based analysis.BMC proceedings · 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
Abstract
To test for association between a disease and a set of linked markers, or to estimate relative risks of disease, several different methods have been developed. Many methods for family data require that individuals be genotyped at the full set of markers and that phase can be reconstructed. Individuals with missing data are excluded from the analysis. This can result in an important decrease in sample size and a loss of information. A possible solution to this problem is to use missing-data likelihood methods. We propose an alternative approach, namely the use of multiple imputation. Briefly, this method consists in estimating from the available data all possible phased genotypes and their respective posterior probabilities. These posterior probabilities are then used to generate replicate imputed data sets via a data augmentation algorithm. We performed simulations to test the efficiency of this approach for case/parent trio data and we found that the multiple imputation procedure generally gave unbiased parameter estimates with correct type 1 error and confidence interval coverage. Multiple imputation had some advantages over missing data likelihood methods with regards to ease of use and model flexibility. Multiple imputation methods represent promising tools in the search for disease susceptibility variants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.