ArticleHuman heredity2013
A rapid association test procedure robust under different genetic models accounting for population stratification.
Article in Human heredity, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying novel associations in GWAS by hierarchical Bayesian latent variable detection of differentially misclassified phenotypes.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Statistical Method Based on Bayes-Type Empirical Score Test for Assessing Genetic Association with Multilocus Genotype Data.International journal of genomics · 2020Article
- A Generalized Sequential Bonferroni Procedure for GWAS in Admixed Populations Incorporating Admixture Mapping Information into Association Tests.Human heredity · 2015Article
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
objectiveFor genome-wide association studies (GWAS) using case-control data with stratification, a commonly used association test is the generalized Armitage (GA) trend test implemented in the software EIGENSTRAT. The GA trend test uses principal component analysis to correct for population stratification. It usually assumes an additive disease model and can have high power when the underlying disease model is additive or multiplicative, but may have relatively low power when the underlying disease model is recessive or dominant. The purpose of this paper is to provide a test procedure for GWAS with increased power over the GA trend test under the recessive and dominant models, while maintaining the power of the GA trend test under the additive and multiplicative models.
methodsWe extend a Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium (HWD) trend test for a homogeneous population to account for population stratification, and then propose a robust association test procedure for GWAS that incorporates information from the extended HWD trend test into the GA trend test. RESULTS AND
conclusionsOur simulation studies and application of our method to a GWAS data set indicate that our proposed method can achieve the purpose described above.
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.