ArticlePLoS genetics2009
Statistical power of model selection strategies for genome-wide association studies.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population size in QTL detection using quantile regression in genome-wide association studies.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Digitalizing breeding in plants: A new trend of next-generation breeding based on genomic prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Bayesian Model Averaging to Account for Model Uncertainty in Estimates of a Vaccine's Effectiveness.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Review on Databases and Bioinformatic Approaches on Pharmacogenomics of Adverse Drug Reactions.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Bayesian and frequentist analysis of an Austrian genome-wide association study of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- A BAYESIAN GRAPHICAL MODEL FOR GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDIES (GWAS).The annals of applied statistics · 2016Article
- Beyond single-marker analyses: mining whole genome scans for insights into treatment responses in severe sepsis.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2013Article
- ParseCNV integrative copy number variation association software with quality tracking.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
- Statistical analysis reveals co-expression patterns of many pairs of genes in yeast are jointly regulated by interacting loci.PLoS genetics · 2013Article
- Epigenetic influences in the aetiology of cancers arising from breast and prostate: a hypothesised transgenerational evolution in chromatin accessibility.ISRN oncology · 2013Article
- Sample size and statistical power calculation in genetic association studies.Genomics & informatics · 2012Article
- ON MODEL SELECTION STRATEGIES TO IDENTIFY GENES UNDERLYING BINARY TRAITS USING GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION DATA.Statistica Sinica · 2012Article
- Detecting genetic interactions for quantitative traits with U-statistics.Genetic epidemiology · 2011Article
- Bioinformatics challenges for personalized medicine.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- Detecting epistatic SNPs associated with complex diseases via a Bayesian classification tree search method.Annals of human genetics · 2011Article
- An approach based on a genome-wide association study reveals candidate loci for narcolepsy.Human genetics · 2010Article
- Two-stage joint selection method to identify candidate markers from genome-wide association studies.BMC proceedings · 2009Article
- A FAST ALGORITHM FOR DETECTING GENE-GENE INTERACTIONS IN GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDIES.The annals of applied statisticsArticle
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
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) aim to identify genetic variants related to diseases by examining the associations between phenotypes and hundreds of thousands of genotyped markers. Because many genes are potentially involved in common diseases and a large number of markers are analyzed, it is crucial to devise an effective strategy to identify truly associated variants that have individual and/or interactive effects, while controlling false positives at the desired level. Although a number of model selection methods have been proposed in the literature, including marginal search, exhaustive search, and forward search, their relative performance has only been evaluated through limited simulations due to the lack of an analytical approach to calculating the power of these methods. This article develops a novel statistical approach for power calculation, derives accurate formulas for the power of different model selection strategies, and then uses the formulas to evaluate and compare these strategies in genetic model spaces. In contrast to previous studies, our theoretical framework allows for random genotypes, correlations among test statistics, and a false-positive control based on GWAS practice. After the accuracy of our analytical results is validated through simulations, they are utilized to systematically evaluate and compare the performance of these strategies in a wide class of genetic models. For a specific genetic model, our results clearly reveal how different factors, such as effect size, allele frequency, and interaction, jointly affect the statistical power of each strategy. An example is provided for the application of our approach to empirical research. The statistical approach used in our derivations is general and can be employed to address the model selection problems in other random predictor settings. We have developed an R package markerSearchPower to implement our formulas, which can be downloaded from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) or http://bioinformatics.med.yale.edu/group/.
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.