ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2015
Likelihood-based complex trait association testing for arbitrary depth sequencing data.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2015. 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.
- Next-Generation Sequencing Data-Based Association Testing of a Group of Genetic Markers for Complex Responses Using a Generalized Linear Model Framework.Mathematics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledIn next generation sequencing (NGS)-based genetic studies, researchers typically perform genotype calling first and then apply standard genotype-based methods for association testing. However, such a two-step approach ignores genotype calling uncertainty in the association testing step and may incur power loss and/or inflated type-I error. In the recent literature, a few robust and efficient likelihood based methods including both likelihood ratio test (LRT) and score test have been proposed to carry out association testing without intermediate genotype calling. These methods take genotype calling uncertainty into account by directly incorporating genotype likelihood function (GLF) of NGS data into association analysis. However, existing LRT methods are computationally demanding or do not allow covariate adjustment; while existing score tests are not applicable to markers with low minor allele frequency (MAF). We provide an LRT allowing flexible covariate adjustment, develop a statistically more powerful score test and propose a combination strategy (UNC combo) to leverage the advantages of both tests. We have carried out extensive simulations to evaluate the performance of our proposed LRT and score test. Simulations and real data analysis demonstrate the advantages of our proposed combination strategy: it offers a satisfactory trade-off in terms of computational efficiency, applicability (accommodating both common variants and variants with low MAF) and statistical power, particularly for the analysis of quantitative trait where the power gain can be up to ∼60% when the causal variant is of low frequency (MAF < 0.01). AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: UNC combo and the associated R files, including documentation, examples, are available at http://www.unc.edu/∼yunmli/UNCcombo/ CONTACT: yunli@med.unc.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.