Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20017987›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2009

Pedigree association: assigning individual weights to pedigree members for genetic association analysis.

Stacey Knight, Ryan P Abo, Jathine Wong, Alun Thomas, Nicola J Camp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stacey KnightBiomedical Informatics Department, University of Utah, 26 South 2000 East Room 5775 HSEB, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA. stacey.knight@hsc.utah.edu.
Ryan P Abo
Jathine Wong
Alun Thomas
Nicola J Camp
University of Utah · US

Funding

GENETIC ANALYSIS OF COMMON DISEASES: AN EVALUATIONR01GM031575 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY · PI ALMASY, LAURA A. · 1985 to 2016
$7.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM031575
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMethods exist to appropriately perform association analyses in pedigrees. However, for genome-wide association analysis, these methods are computationally impractical. It is therefore important to determine alternate methods that can be efficiently used genome-wide. Here, we introduce a new algorithm that considers all relationships simultaneously in arbitrary-structured pedigrees and assigns weights to pedigree members that can be used in subsequent analyses to address relatedness. We compare this new method with an existing weighting algorithm, a naïve analysis (relatedness is ignored), and an empirical method that appropriately accounts for all relationships (the gold standard).

methodsFramingham Heart Study Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 Problem 2 data were used with a dichotomous phenotype based on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (1,611 cases and 4,043 controls). New and existing algorithms for calculating weights were used. Cochran-Armitage trend tests were performed for 17,333 single-nucleotide polymorphisms on chromosome 8 using both weighting systems and the naïve approach; a subset of 500 single-nucleotide polymorphisms were tested empirically. Correlations of p-values from each method were determined.

resultsResults from the two weighting methods were strongly correlated (r = 0.96). Our new weighting method performed better than the existing weighting method (r = 0.89 vs. r = 0.83), which is due to a more moderate down-weighting. The naive analysis obtained the best correlation with the empirical gold standard results (r = 0.99).

conclusionOur results suggest that weighting methods do not accurately represent tests that account for familial relationships in genetic association analyses and are inferior to the naïve method as an efficient initial genome-wide screening tool.

Identifiers

PMID20017987
PMCPMC2795894
OpenAlexW2096037245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.