ArticleJournal of human genetics2007
A grid-search algorithm for optimal allocation of sample size in two-stage association studies.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The feasibility of parameterizing four-state equilibria using relaxation dispersion measurements.Journal of biomolecular NMR · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple testing occurs commonly in genome-wide association studies with dense SNPs map. With numerous SNPs, not only the genotyping cost and time increase dramatically, many family wise error rate (FWER) controlling methods may fail for being too conservative and of less power when detecting SNPs associated with disease is of interest. Recently, several powerful two-stage strategies for multiple testing have received great attention. In this paper, we propose a grid-search algorithm for an optimal design of sample size allocation for these two-stage procedures. Two types of constraints are considered, one is the fixed overall cost and the other is the limited sample size. With the proposed optimal allocation of sample size, bearable false-positive results and larger power can be achieved to meet the limitations. The simulations indicate, as a general rule, allocating at least 80% of the total cost in stage one provides maximum power, as opposed to other methods. If per-genotyping cost in stage two differs from that in stage one, downward proportion of the total cost in earlier stage maintains good power. For limited total sample size, evaluating all the markers on 55% of the subjects in the first stage provides the maximum power while the cost reduction is approximately 43%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17603750What 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.