Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19344449›Full record

ArticleAnnals of human genetics2009

The cost effectiveness of duplicate genotyping for testing genetic association.

Nathan Tintle, Derek Gordon, Dirk Van Bruggen, Stephen Finch

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nathan TintleHope College, Department of Mathematics, Holland, Michigan 49423, USA. tintle@hope.edu
Derek Gordon
Dirk Van Bruggen
Stephen Finch

Funding

Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Sample Designs for Genetic AssocR15HG004543 · NHGRI · HOPE COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2008 to 2011
$288k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG004543NHGRI NIH HHS R15-HG004543
6 · The paper itself

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

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID19344449
PMCPMC2739690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.