ArticleGenetic epidemiology2012
Inheritance model introduces differential bias in CNV calls between parents and offspring.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Copy Number Variation (CNV) is increasingly implicated in disease pathogenesis. CNVs are often identified by statistical models applied to data from single nucleotide polymorphism panels. Family information for samples provides additional information for CNV inference. Two modes of PennCNV (the Joint-call and Posterior-call), which are some of the most well-developed family-based CNV calling methods, use a "Joint-model" as a main component. This models all family members' CNV states together with Mendelian inheritance. Methods based on the Joint-model are used to infer CNV calls of cases and controls in a pedigree, which may be compared to each other to test an association. Although benefits from the Joint-model have been shown elsewhere, equality of call rates in parents and offspring has not been evaluated previously. This can affect downstream analyses in studies that compare CNV rates in cases vs. controls in pedigrees. In this paper, we show that the Joint-model can introduce different CNV call rates among family members in the absence of a true difference. We show that the Joint-model may analytically introduce differential CNV calls because of asymmetry of the model. We demonstrate these differential call rates using single-marker simulations. We show that call rates using the two modes of PennCNV also differ between parents and offspring in one multimarker simulated dataset and two real datasets. Our results advise need for caution in use of the Joint-model calls in CNV association studies with family-based datasets.
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.