ArticleGenetic epidemiology2009
Phase uncertainty in case-control association studies.
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 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.
- Powerful multi-marker association tests: unifying genomic distance-based regression and logistic regression.Genetic epidemiology · 2010Article
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
The possible evidence for association comprises three types of information: differences between cases and controls in allele frequencies, in parameters for Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium (HWD), and in parameters for linkage disequilibrium (LD). LD between marker and disease alleles results in a difference in at least one of the three types of parameters [Won and Elston, 2008]. However, the parameters for LD require knowledge about phase, which is usually unknown, making the LD contrast test without modification infeasible in practice. Methods for handling phase uncertainty are: (1) the most probable haplotype pair for each individual can be considered as the true phase; (2) a weighted average of haplotypes can be used; (3) we can consider the composite LD, which does not require any information about phase. We compare these methods to handle phase uncertainty in terms of validity and efficiency, and the effect on them of HWD in the population, at the same time confirming results for the three types of information. When the LD between markers is high, the LD contrast test that uses a weighted average of haplotypes or the most probable haplotypes to calculate the LD is recommended, but otherwise the LD contrast test that uses the composite LD is recommended. We conclude that, even though the difference in allele frequencies is usually the most informative test except in the case of a recessive disease, the LD contrast test can be more powerful if the markers are dense enough.
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.