ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015
The effect of rare variants on inflation of the test statistics in case-control analyses.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying Rare Germline Variants Associated with Metastatic Prostate Cancer Through an Extreme Phenotype Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Rare Variants in the DNA Repair Pathway and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Article
- Familial analysis reveals rare risk variants for migraine in regulatory regions.Neurogenetics · 2020Article
- Influence of genetic copy number variants of the human GLUT3 glucose transporter geneMolecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2019Article
- Rare coding variants associated with blood pressure variation in 15 914 individuals of African ancestry.Journal of hypertension · 2017Article
- Exome genotyping arrays to identify rare and low frequency variants associated with epithelial ovarian cancer risk.Human molecular 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe detection of bias due to cryptic population structure is an important step in the evaluation of findings of genetic association studies. The standard method of measuring this bias in a genetic association study is to compare the observed median association test statistic to the expected median test statistic. This ratio is inflated in the presence of cryptic population structure. However, inflation may also be caused by the properties of the association test itself particularly in the analysis of rare variants. We compared the properties of the three most commonly used association tests: the likelihood ratio test, the Wald test and the score test when testing rare variants for association using simulated data.
resultsWe found evidence of inflation in the median test statistics of the likelihood ratio and score tests for tests of variants with less than 20 heterozygotes across the sample, regardless of the total sample size. The test statistics for the Wald test were under-inflated at the median for variants below the same minor allele frequency.
conclusionsIn a genetic association study, if a substantial proportion of the genetic variants tested have rare minor allele frequencies, the properties of the association test may mask the presence or absence of bias due to population structure. The use of either the likelihood ratio test or the score test is likely to lead to inflation in the median test statistic in the absence of population structure. In contrast, the use of the Wald test is likely to result in under-inflation of the median test statistic which may mask the presence of population structure.
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.