ArticleStatistics in medicine2016
Robust analysis of secondary phenotypes in case-control genetic association studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel association test for multiple secondary phenotypes from a case-control GWAS.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Trial
- Regression Reconstruction from a Retrospective Sample.Econometrics and statistics · 2023Article
- Article
- Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations.International journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The case-control study is a common design for assessing the association between genetic exposures and a disease phenotype. Though association with a given (case-control) phenotype is always of primary interest, there is often considerable interest in assessing relationships between genetic exposures and other (secondary) phenotypes. However, the case-control sample represents a biased sample from the general population. As a result, if this sampling framework is not correctly taken into account, analyses estimating the effect of exposures on secondary phenotypes can be biased leading to incorrect inference. In this paper, we address this problem and propose a general approach for estimating and testing the population effect of a genetic variant on a secondary phenotype. Our approach is based on inverse probability weighted estimating equations, where the weights depend on genotype and the secondary phenotype. We show that, though slightly less efficient than a full likelihood-based analysis when the likelihood is correctly specified, it is substantially more robust to model misspecification, and can out-perform likelihood-based analysis, both in terms of validity and power, when the model is misspecified. We illustrate our approach with an application to a case-control study extracted from the Framingham Heart Study. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.