ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2016
Accounting for selection and correlation in the analysis of two-stage genome-wide association studies.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjusting for treatment selection in phase II/III clinical trials with time to event data.Statistics in medicine · 2023Trial
- The benefits of covariate adjustment for adaptive multi-arm designs.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
- Point and interval estimation in two-stage adaptive designs with time to event data and biomarker-driven subpopulation selection.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
- Conditionally unbiased estimation in the normal setting with unknown variances.Communications in statistics: theory and methods · 2019Article
- Point estimation following two-stage adaptive threshold enrichment clinical trials.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
- Stepwise approach to SNP-set analysis illustrated with the Metabochip and colorectal cancer in Japanese Americans of the Multiethnic Cohort.BMC genomics · 2018Article
- Unbiased estimation in seamless phase II/III trials with unequal treatment effect variances and hypothesis-driven selection rules.Statistics in medicine · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The problem of selection bias has long been recognized in the analysis of two-stage trials, where promising candidates are selected in stage 1 for confirmatory analysis in stage 2. To efficiently correct for bias, uniformly minimum variance conditionally unbiased estimators (UMVCUEs) have been proposed for a wide variety of trial settings, but where the population parameter estimates are assumed to be independent. We relax this assumption and derive the UMVCUE in the multivariate normal setting with an arbitrary known covariance structure. One area of application is the estimation of odds ratios (ORs) when combining a genome-wide scan with a replication study. Our framework explicitly accounts for correlated single nucleotide polymorphisms, as might occur due to linkage disequilibrium. We illustrate our approach on the measurement of the association between 11 genetic variants and the risk of Crohn's disease, as reported in Parkes and others (2007. Sequence variants in the autophagy gene IRGM and multiple other replicating loci contribute to Crohn's disease susceptibility. Nat. Gen. 39: (7), 830-832.), and show that the estimated ORs can vary substantially if both selection and correlation are taken into account.
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.