ArticleGenetic epidemiology2009
Combined haplotype relative risk (CHRR): a general and simple genetic association test that combines trios and unrelated case-controls.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Haplotype association analysis of combining unrelated case-control and triads with consideration of population stratification.Frontiers in genetics · 2014Article
- Increasing the power of association studies with affected families, unrelated cases and controls.Frontiers in genetics · 2013Article
- Exploration and comparison of methods for combining population- and family-based genetic association using the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 mini-exome.BMC proceedings · 2011Article
- CAPL: an efficient association software package using family and case-control data and accounting for population stratification.BMC bioinformatics · 2011Article
- Genome-wide association study identifies two susceptibility loci for nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate.Nature genetics · 2010Article
- A new method to account for missing data in case-parent triad studies.Human heredity · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In some genetic association studies, samples contain both parental and unrelated controls. Under such scenarios, instead of analyzing only trios using family-based association tests or only unrelated subjects using a case-control study design, Nagelkerke et al. ([2004] Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 12:964-970) and Epstein et al. ([2005] Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:592-608) proposed methods that implemented a likelihood ratio test to combine the two different types of data. In this article, we put forward a more powerful and simplified strategy to combine trios with unrelated subjects based on the haplotype relative risk (HRR) (Falk and Rubinstein [1987] Ann. Hum. Genet. 51:227-233). The HRR compares parental marker alleles transmitted to an affected offspring to those not transmitted as a test for association, a strategy that is similar to a case-control study that compares allele frequencies in diseased cases to those of unrelated controls. We prove that affected offspring can be pooled with diseased cases and that parental controls can be treated as unrelated controls when the trios and unrelated subjects are randomly sampled from the same population. Therefore, unrelated subjects can be incorporated into the HRR intuitively and effortlessly. For trios without complete parental genotypes, we adopted the strategy proposed by (Guo et al. [2005a] BMC Genet. 6:S90; [2005b] Hum. Hered. 59: 125-135), which is more feasible than the one proposed by Weinberg ([1999] Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64:1186-1193). In addition, simulation results suggest that the combined haplotype relative risk is more powerful than Epstein et al.'s method regardless of the disease prevalence in a homogeneous population.
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.