ArticleHuman heredity2010
Correcting for cryptic relatedness in population-based association studies of continuous traits.
Article in Human heredity, 2010. 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.
- Privacy-aware estimation of relatedness in admixed populations.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Genome-wide association studies for growth traits in broilers.BMC genomic data · 2022Article
- Genome wide association study of body weight and feed efficiency traits in a commercial broiler chicken population, a re-visitation.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Population-genetic comparison of the Sorbian isolate population in Germany with the German KORA population using genome-wide SNP arrays.BMC genetics · 2011Article
- Review
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
Cryptic relatedness was suggested to be an important source of confounding in population-based association studies (PBAS). The magnitude and manner of cryptic relatedness affecting the performance of PBAS of continuous traits remain to be investigated. We simulated a set of related samples through biased sampling and inbreeding, and evaluated the power and type I error rates of simple association tests (SAT) without correcting for cryptic relatedness. We also used extended likelihood ratio tests (ELRT) to conduct PBAS accounting for cryptic relatedness, and compared it with genomic control (GC). Cryptic relatedness decreased the power as well as increased the type I error rates of SAT in both biased sampling and inbreeding models. The impact of cryptic relatedness on the performance of SAT appeared to be limited in the biased sampling model. However, cryptic relatedness in inbred populations may result in excessive false positive results of SAT. Compared with SAT and GC, ELRT obtained improved power and type I error rates under various scenarios. Ignoring cryptic relatedness may increase spurious association results in PBAS. Our ELRT provides a novel approach to control cryptic relatedness in PBAS of human continuous traits.
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.