ArticleStatistica Sinica2012
ON MODEL SELECTION STRATEGIES TO IDENTIFY GENES UNDERLYING BINARY TRAITS USING GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION DATA.
Article in Statistica Sinica, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
For more fruitful discoveries of genetic variants associated with diseases in genome-wide association studies, it is important to know whether joint analysis of multiple markers is more powerful than the commonly used single-marker analysis, especially in the presence of gene-gene interactions. This article provides a statistical framework to rigorously address this question through analytical power calculations for common model search strategies to detect binary trait loci: marginal search, exhaustive search, forward search, and two-stage screening search. Our approach incorporates linkage disequilibrium, random genotypes, and correlations among score test statistics of logistic regressions. We derive analytical results under two power definitions: the power of finding all the associated markers and the power of finding at least one associated marker. We also consider two types of error controls: the discovery number control and the Bonferroni type I error rate control. After demonstrating the accuracy of our analytical results by simulations, we apply them to consider a broad genetic model space to investigate the relative performances of different model search strategies. Our analytical study provides rapid computation as well as insights into the statistical mechanism of capturing genetic signals under different genetic models including gene-gene interactions. Even though we focus on genetic association analysis, our results on the power of model selection procedures are clearly very general and applicable to other studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23956610PMC3744348What 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.