ArticleThe pharmacogenomics journal2014
Detecting signals in pharmacogenomic genome-wide association studies.
Article in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2014. 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.
- Transforming Pharmacovigilance With Pharmacogenomics: Toward Personalized Risk Management.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Exploring predictive biomarkers from clinical genome-wide association studies via multidimensional hierarchical mixture models.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- A genome-wide investigation into parent-of-origin effects in autism spectrum disorder identifies previously associated genes including SHANK3.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a common pharmacogenomic scenario, outcome measures are compared for treated and untreated subjects across genotype-defined subgroups. The key question is whether treatment benefit (or harm) is particularly strong in certain subgroups, and therefore the statistical analysis focuses on the interaction between treatment and genotype. However, genome-wide analysis in such scenarios requires careful statistical thought as, in addition to the usual problems of multiple testing, the marker-defined sample sizes, and therefore power, vary across the individual genotypes being evaluated. The variability in power means that the usual practice of using a common P-value threshold across tests has difficulties. The reason is that the use of a fixed threshold, with variable power, implies that the costs of type I and type II errors vary across tests in a manner that is implicit rather than dictated by the analyst. In this paper we discuss this problem and describe an easily implementable solution based on Bayes factors. We pay particular attention to the specification of priors, which is not a straightforward task. The methods are illustrated using data from a randomized controlled clinical trial in which homocysteine levels are compared in individuals receiving low and high doses of folate supplements and across marker subgroups. The method we describe is implemented in the R computing environment with code available from http://faculty.washington.edu/jonno/cv.html.
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.