ArticleAnnals of human genetics2017
Differentiating the Cochran-Armitage Trend Test and Pearson's χ
Article in Annals of human genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the analysis of genetic association with long-read sequencing data.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of digital health in cardiovascular diseases.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Risk-associated factors associated with the bovine viral diarrhea virus in dromedary camels, sheep, and goats in abattoir surveillance and semi-closed herd system.Veterinary world · 2022Article
- The X factor: A robust and powerful approach to X-chromosome-inclusive whole-genome association studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2021Article
- Racial/Ethnic Disparities on the Risk of Second Malignant Neoplasm Among Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Pharmacotherapy for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Treatment Patterns by Disease Severity.Drugs · 2020Article
- Decomposing Pearson's χAnnals of human genetics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In genetic case-control association studies, a standard practice is to perform the Cochran-Armitage (CA) trend test with 1 degree-of-freedom (d.f.) under the assumption of an additive model. However, when the true genetic model is recessive or near recessive, it is outperformed by Pearson's χ
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.