ArticleBiometrics2011
Hierarchical modeling for estimating relative risks of rare genetic variants: properties of the pseudo-likelihood method.
Article in Biometrics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bayesian hierarchically structured prior for rare-variant association testing.Genetic epidemiology · 2021Article
- A hierarchical modeling approach for assessing the safety of exposure to complex antiretroviral drug regimens during pregnancy.Statistical methods in medical research · 2019Article
- Unified Sequence-Based Association Tests Allowing for Multiple Functional Annotations and Meta-analysis of Noncoding Variation in Metabochip Data.American journal of human genetics · 2017Article
- Group association test using a hidden Markov model.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- A spectral approach integrating functional genomic annotations for coding and noncoding variants.Nature genetics · 2016Article
- False discovery rates for rare variants from sequenced data.Genetic epidemiology · 2015Article
- Integrative analysis of functional genomic annotations and sequencing data to identify rare causal variants via hierarchical modeling.Frontiers in genetics · 2015Article
- Identification of rare causal variants in sequence-based studies: methods and applications to VPS13B, a gene involved in Cohen syndrome and autism.PLoS genetics · 2014Article
- A variational Bayes discrete mixture test for rare variant association.Genetic epidemiology · 2014Article
- Two-phase and family-based designs for next-generation sequencing studies.Frontiers in genetics · 2013Review
- An assessment of estimation methods for generalized linear mixed models with binary outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2013Article
- A unified mixed-effects model for rare-variant association in sequencing studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2013Article
- Joint analysis for integrating two related studies of different data types and different study designs using hierarchical modeling approaches.Human heredity · 2012Article
- Incorporating model uncertainty in detecting rare variants: the Bayesian risk index.Genetic epidemiology · 2011Article
- Assessment of rare BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of unknown significance using hierarchical modeling.Genetic epidemiology · 2011Article
- Confounded by sequencing depth in association studies of rare alleles.Genetic epidemiology · 2011Article
- Statistical analysis strategies for association studies involving rare variants.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2010Review
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
Many major genes have been identified that strongly influence the risk of cancer. However, there are typically many different mutations that can occur in the gene, each of which may or may not confer increased risk. It is critical to identify which specific mutations are harmful, and which ones are harmless, so that individuals who learn from genetic testing that they have a mutation can be appropriately counseled. This is a challenging task, since new mutations are continually being identified, and there is typically relatively little evidence available about each individual mutation. In an earlier article, we employed hierarchical modeling (Capanu et al., 2008, Statistics in Medicine 27, 1973-1992) using the pseudo-likelihood and Gibbs sampling methods to estimate the relative risks of individual rare variants using data from a case-control study and showed that one can draw strength from the aggregating power of hierarchical models to distinguish the variants that contribute to cancer risk. However, further research is needed to validate the application of asymptotic methods to such sparse data. In this article, we use simulations to study in detail the properties of the pseudo-likelihood method for this purpose. We also explore two alternative approaches: pseudo-likelihood with correction for the variance component estimate as proposed by Lin and Breslow (1996, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 1007-1016) and a hybrid pseudo-likelihood approach with Bayesian estimation of the variance component. We investigate the validity of these hierarchical modeling techniques by looking at the bias and coverage properties of the estimators as well as at the efficiency of the hierarchical modeling estimates relative to that of the maximum likelihood estimates. The results indicate that the estimates of the relative risks of very sparse variants have small bias, and that the estimated 95% confidence intervals are typically anti-conservative, though the actual coverage rates are generally above 90%. The widths of the confidence intervals narrow as the residual variance in the second-stage model is reduced. The results also show that the hierarchical modeling estimates have shorter confidence intervals relative to estimates obtained from conventional logistic regression, and that these relative improvements increase as the variants become more rare.
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.