Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27374056›Full record

ArticleGenetic epidemiology2016

A Comparison Study of Fixed and Mixed Effect Models for Gene Level Association Studies of Complex Traits.

Ruzong Fan, Chi-Yang Chiu, Jeesun Jung, Daniel E Weeks, Alexander F Wilson, Joan E Bailey-Wilson, Christopher I Amos, Zhen Chen, James L Mills, Momiao Xiong

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ruzong FanBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Chi-Yang ChiuBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Jeesun JungLaboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Daniel E WeeksDepartments of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Alexander F WilsonComputational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Joan E Bailey-WilsonComputational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Christopher I AmosDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States of America.
Zhen ChenBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
James L MillsEpidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Momiao XiongHuman Genetics Center, University of Texas-Houston, Houston, Texas, United States of America.

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Genometric analysis of quantitative traitsZIAHG000200 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI WILSON, ALEXANDER F · 2009 to 2020
$19.8M
Quantitative Biology Research InstituteP20GM103534 · NIGMS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI AMOS, CHRISTOPHER I. · 2012 to 2016
$8.6M
Development of statistical genetics methodologyZIAHG000153 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BAILEY-WILSON, JOAN ELLEN · 2009 to 2022
$5.0M
NICHD Health Research Board Of Ireland Neural Tube Defects StudyZIAHD002502 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI MILLS, JAMES · 2009 to 2022
$2.9M
Statistical Methods for Association Analysis of Complex TraitsZIAHD008918 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI FAN, RUZONG · 2011 to 2016
$1.1M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HD999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA HD008918NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103534
6 · The paper itself

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

Computer SimulationGenetic Association StudiesModels, StatisticalGenetic MarkersGenetic VariationGenotypeHirschsprung DiseaseHumansLipid Metabolism DisordersModels, GeneticMultifactorial InheritanceNeural Tube DefectsPhenotypeQuantitative Trait LociGenetic Markersassociation mappingcommon variantscomplex traitsfunctional data analysislogistic regressionsmultivariate linear modelsquantitative/dichotomous trait locirare variants

Identifiers

PMID27374056
PMCPMC5567849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.