ArticleGenetic epidemiology2009
Genome-wide association studies for discrete traits.
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.
- Genome-wide association studies: quality control and population-based measures.Genetic epidemiology · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies of discrete traits generally use simple methods of analysis based on chi(2) tests for contingency tables or logistic regression, at least for an initial scan of the entire genome. Nevertheless, more power might be obtained by using various methods that analyze multiple markers in combination. Methods based on sliding windows, wavelets, Bayesian shrinkage, or penalized likelihood methods, among others, were explored by various participants of Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 Group 1 to combine information across multiple markers within a region, while others used Bayesian variable selection methods for genome-wide multivariate analyses of all markers simultaneously. Imputation can be used to fill in missing markers on individual subjects within a study or in a meta-analysis of studies using different panels. Although multiple imputation theoretically should give more robust tests of association, one participant contribution found little difference between results of single and multiple imputation. Careful control of population stratification is essential, and two contributions found that previously reported associations with two genes disappeared after more precise control. Other issues considered by this group included subgroup analysis, gene-gene interactions, and the use of biomarkers.
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.