ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2013
A unifying framework for robust association testing, estimation, and genetic model selection using the generalized linear model.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association ofMolecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2024Article
- Genome-wide association testing in malaria studies in the presence of overdominance.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Development and application of Single Primer Enrichment Technology (SPET) SNP assay for population genomics analysis and candidate gene discovery in lettuce.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Decomposing Pearson's χAnnals of human genetics · 2018Article
- Genetic model misspecification in genetic association studies.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Differentiating the Cochran-Armitage Trend Test and Pearson's χAnnals of human genetics · 2017Article
- Gain of power of the general regression model compared to Cochran-Armitage Trend tests: simulation study and application to bipolar disorder.BMC genetics · 2017Article
- Nonadditive Effects of Genes in Human Metabolomics.Genetics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The analysis of genome-wide genetic association studies generally starts with univariate statistical tests of each single-nucleotide polymorphism. The standard approach is the Cochran-Armitage trend test or its logistic regression equivalent although this approach can lose considerable power if the underlying genetic model is not additive. An alternative is the MAX test, which is robust against the three basic modes of inheritance. Here, the asymptotic distribution of the MAX test is derived using the generalized linear model together with the Delta method and multiple contrasts. The approach is applicable to binary, quantitative, and survival traits. It may be used for unrelated individuals, family-based studies, and matched pairs. The approach provides point and interval effect estimates and allows selecting the most plausible genetic model using the minimum P-value. R code is provided. A Monte-Carlo simulation study shows that the asymptotic MAX test framework meets type I error levels well, has good power, and good model selection properties for minor allele frequencies ≥0.3. Pearson's χ(2)-test is superior for lower minor allele frequencies with low frequencies for the rare homozygous genotype. In these cases, the model selection procedure should be used with caution. The use of the MAX test is illustrated by reanalyzing findings from seven genome-wide association studies including case-control, matched pairs, and quantitative trait data.
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.