ArticleGenetic epidemiology2016
A Comparison Study of Fixed and Mixed Effect Models for Gene Level Association Studies of Complex Traits.
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 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of quantitative pleiotropic traits for next-generation sequencing with multivariate functional linear models.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Pooled it
- Dual HER2 Blockade in Neoadjuvant Treatment of HER2+ Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Review.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Gene-Based Association Testing of Dichotomous Traits With Generalized Functional Linear Mixed Models Using Extended Pedigrees: Applications to Age-Related Macular Degeneration.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2021Article
- Gene-based association analysis of survival traits via functional regression-based mixed effect cox models for related samples.Genetic epidemiology · 2019Article
- Linear mixed models for association analysis of quantitative traits with next-generation sequencing data.Genetic epidemiology · 2019Article
- Adaptive testing for association between two random vectors in moderate to high dimensions.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
- A comparison study of multivariate fixed models and Gene Association with Multiple Traits (GAMuT) for next-generation sequencing.Genetic epidemiology · 2017Article
- A Comparison Study of Fixed and Mixed Effect Models for Gene Level Association Studies of Complex Traits.Genetic epidemiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In association studies of complex traits, fixed-effect regression models are usually used to test for association between traits and major gene loci. In recent years, variance-component tests based on mixed models were developed for region-based genetic variant association tests. In the mixed models, the association is tested by a null hypothesis of zero variance via a sequence kernel association test (SKAT), its optimal unified test (SKAT-O), and a combined sum test of rare and common variant effect (SKAT-C). Although there are some comparison studies to evaluate the performance of mixed and fixed models, there is no systematic analysis to determine when the mixed models perform better and when the fixed models perform better. Here we evaluated, based on extensive simulations, the performance of the fixed and mixed model statistics, using genetic variants located in 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 kb simulated regions. We compared the performance of three models: (i) mixed models that lead to SKAT, SKAT-O, and SKAT-C, (ii) traditional fixed-effect additive models, and (iii) fixed-effect functional regression models. To evaluate the type I error rates of the tests of fixed models, we generated genotype data by two methods: (i) using all variants, (ii) using only rare variants. We found that the fixed-effect tests accurately control or have low false positive rates. We performed simulation analyses to compare power for two scenarios: (i) all causal variants are rare, (ii) some causal variants are rare and some are common. Either one or both of the fixed-effect models performed better than or similar to the mixed models except when (1) the region sizes are 12 and 15 kb and (2) effect sizes are small. Therefore, the assumption of mixed models could be satisfied and SKAT/SKAT-O/SKAT-C could perform better if the number of causal variants is large and each causal variant contributes a small amount to the traits (i.e., polygenes). In major gene association studies, we argue that the fixed-effect models perform better or similarly to mixed models in most cases because some variants should affect the traits relatively large. In practice, it makes sense to perform analysis by both the fixed and mixed effect models and to make a comparison, and this can be readily done using our R codes and the SKAT packages.
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.