SynthesisHuman heredity2016
Meta-Analysis for Penalized Regression Methods with Multi-Cohort Genome-Wide Association Studies.
Synthesis in Human heredity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivePenalized regression has been successfully applied in genome-wide association studies. While meta-analysis is often conducted to increase power and protect patients' confidentiality, methods for meta-analyzing results of penalized regression in multi-cohort setting are still under development.
methodsWe propose to use a data-splitting method to obtain valid p values (or equivalently, coefficient estimates and standard errors) for meta-analysis across multiple cohorts. We examine two ways of splitting data in multi-cohort setting and propose three methods to conduct meta-analysis based on p values. We compare the three meta-analysis methods to mega-analysis, which consists of pooling individual level data. We also apply our proposed meta-analysis approaches to the Framingham Heart Study data, where we divide the original dataset into four parts to create a multi-cohort scenario.
resultsThe simulations suggest that splitting cohorts has better performance than splitting data within each cohort. The real data application also shows that this method provides results that are similar to the mega-analysis.
conclusionAfter comparing the three methods that we proposed to conduct meta-analysis, we recommend splitting cohorts rather than datasets to obtain valid p values for meta-analysis of results from penalized regression in multi-cohort setting.
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.