ArticleGenetic epidemiology2016
Adaptive Set-Based Methods for Association Testing.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
With a typical sample size of a few thousand subjects, a single genome-wide association study (GWAS) using traditional one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-at-a-time methods can only detect genetic variants conferring a sizable effect on disease risk. Set-based methods, which analyze sets of SNPs jointly, can detect variants with smaller effects acting within a gene, a pathway, or other biologically relevant sets. Although self-contained set-based methods (those that test sets of variants without regard to variants not in the set) are generally more powerful than competitive set-based approaches (those that rely on comparison of variants in the set of interest with variants not in the set), there is no consensus as to which self-contained methods are best. In particular, several self-contained set tests have been proposed to directly or indirectly "adapt" to the a priori unknown proportion and distribution of effects of the truly associated SNPs in the set, which is a major determinant of their power. A popular adaptive set-based test is the adaptive rank truncated product (ARTP), which seeks the set of SNPs that yields the best-combined evidence of association. We compared the standard ARTP, several ARTP variations we introduced, and other adaptive methods in a comprehensive simulation study to evaluate their performance. We used permutations to assess significance for all the methods and thus provide a level playing field for comparison. We found the standard ARTP test to have the highest power across our simulations followed closely by the global model of random effects (GMRE) and a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-based test.
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.