ArticlePloS one2013
Association testing strategy for data from dense marker panels.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Efficient Multiple-Testing Adjustment for eQTL Studies that Accounts for Linkage Disequilibrium between Variants.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome wide association studies have been usually analyzed in a univariate manner. The commonly used univariate tests have one degree of freedom and assume an additive mode of inheritance. The experiment-wise significance of these univariate statistics is obtained by adjusting for multiple testing. Next generation sequencing studies, which assay 10-20 million variants, are beginning to come online. For these studies, the strategy of additive univariate testing and multiple testing adjustment is likely to result in a loss of power due to (1) the substantial multiple testing burden and (2) the possibility of a non-additive causal mode of inheritance. To reduce the power loss we propose: a new method (1) to summarize in a single statistic the strength of the association signals coming from all not-very-rare variants in a linkage disequilibrium block and (2) to incorporate, in any linkage disequilibrium block statistic, the strength of the association signals under multiple modes of inheritance. The proposed linkage disequilibrium block test consists of the sum of squares of nominally significant univariate statistics. We compare the performance of this method to the performance of existing linkage disequilibrium block/gene-based methods. Simulations show that (1) extending methods to combine testing for multiple modes of inheritance leads to substantial power gains, especially for a recessive mode of inheritance, and (2) the proposed method has a good overall performance. Based on simulation results, we provide practical advice on choosing suitable methods for applied analyses.
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.