ArticleAnnals of human genetics2009
The cost effectiveness of duplicate genotyping for testing genetic association.
Article in Annals of human genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polygenic Models Partially Predict Muscle Size and Strength but Not Low Muscle Mass in Older Women.Genes · 2022Article
- Genome-wide analysis reveals demographic and life-history patterns associated with habitat modification in landlocked, deep-spawning sockeye salmon (Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- The Association of Multiple Gene Variants with Ageing Skeletal Muscle Phenotypes in Elderly Women.Genes · 2020Article
- Impact of genotyping errors on statistical power of association tests in genomic analyses: A case study.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
- Article
- Spoiling the whole bunch: quality control aimed at preserving the integrity of high-throughput genotyping.American journal of human genetics · 2010Article
- Incorporating duplicate genotype data into linear trend tests of genetic association: methods and cost-effectiveness.Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology · 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
We consider a modification to the traditional genome wide association (GWA) study design: duplicate genotyping. Duplicate genotyping (re-genotyping some of the samples) has long been suggested for quality control reasons; however, it has not been evaluated for its statistical cost-effectiveness. We demonstrate that when genotyping error rates are at least m%, duplicate genotyping provides a cost-effective (more statistical power for the same price) design alternative when relative genotype to phenotype/sample acquisition costs are no more than m%. In addition to cost and error rate, duplicate genotyping is most cost-effective for SNPs with low minor allele frequency. In general, relative genotype to phenotype/sample acquisition costs will be low when following up a limited number of SNPs in the second stage of a two-stage GWA study design, and, thus, duplicate genotyping may be useful in these situations. In cases where many SNPs are being followed up at the second stage, duplicate genotyping only low-quality SNPs with low minor allele frequency may be cost-effective. We also find that in almost all cases where duplicate genotyping is cost-effective, the most cost-effective design strategy involves duplicate genotyping all samples. Free software is provided which evaluates the cost-effectiveness of duplicate genotyping based on user inputs.
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.