Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25519374›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2014

Evaluating the concordance between sequencing, imputation and microarray genotype calls in the GAW18 data.

Ally Rogers, Andrew Beck, Nathan L Tintle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ally RogersDepartment of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Dordt College, Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA.
Andrew BeckDepartment of Mathematics, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60660, USA.
Nathan L TintleDepartment of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Dordt College, Sioux Center, IA 51250, USA.

Funding

GENETIC ANALYSIS OF COMMON DISEASES: AN EVALUATIONR01GM031575 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY · PI ALMASY, LAURA A. · 1985 to 2016
$7.8M
Analyzing the behavior and interpreting the results of gene based tests of rare variant associationR15HG006915 · NHGRI · DORDT COLLEGE · PI TINTLE, NATHAN L · 2012 to 2020
$1.3M
NHGRI NIH HHS R15 HG006915NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM031575
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genotype errors are well known to increase type I errors and/or decrease power in related tests of genotype-phenotype association, depending on whether the genotype error mechanism is associated with the phenotype. These relationships hold for both single and multimarker tests of genotype-phenotype association. To assess the potential for genotype errors in Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 (GAW18) data, where no gold standard genotype calls are available, we explored concordance rates between sequencing, imputation, and microarray genotype calls. Our analysis shows that missing data rates for sequenced individuals are high and that there is a modest amount of called genotype discordance between the 2 platforms, with discordance most common for lower minor allele frequency (MAF) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Some evidence for discordance rates that were different between phenotypes was observed, and we identified a number of cases where different technologies identified different bases at the variant site. Type I errors and power loss is possible as a result of missing genotypes and errors in called genotypes in downstream analysis of GAW18 data.

Identifiers

PMID25519374
PMCPMC4143748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.