ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2015
Testing for risk and protective trends in genetic analyses of HIV acquisition.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2015. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Host genetics studies of HIV-1 acquisition are critically important for the identification of new targets for drug and vaccine development. Analyses of such studies typically focus on pairwise comparisons of three different groups: HIV-1 positive individuals, HIV-1 high-risk seronegative individuals, and population controls. Because there is a clear expectation of how gene frequencies of risk or protective alleles would be ordered in the three groups, we are able to construct a statistical framework that offers a consistent increase in power over a wide-range of the magnitude of risk/protective effects. In this paper, we develop tests that constrain the alternative hypothesis to appropriately reflect risk or protective trends jointly across the three groups and show that they lead to a substantial increase in power over the naive pairwise approach. We develop both likelihood-ratio and score statistics that test for genetic effects across the three groups while constraining the alternative hypothesis to reflect biologically motivated trends of risk or protection. The asymptotic distribution of both statistics (likelihood ratio and score) is derived. We investigate the performance of our approach via extensive simulation studies using a biologically motivated model of HIV-1 acquisition, and find that our proposed approach leads to an increase in power of roughly 10-28%. We illustrate our approach with an analysis of the effect of the CCR5Δ32 mutation on HIV acquisition.
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.