ArticleGenetic epidemiology2018
Estimating and testing direct genetic effects in directed acyclic graphs using estimating equations.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity of polygenic risk scores: are we measuring what we think we are?Human molecular genetics · 2019Review
- Estimating and testing direct genetic effects in directed acyclic graphs using estimating equations.Genetic 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In genetic association studies, it is important to distinguish direct and indirect genetic effects in order to build truly functional models. For this purpose, we consider a directed acyclic graph setting with genetic variants, primary and intermediate phenotypes, and confounding factors. In order to make valid statistical inference on direct genetic effects on the primary phenotype, it is necessary to consider all potential effects in the graph, and we propose to use the estimating equations method with robust Huber-White sandwich standard errors. We evaluate the proposed causal inference based on estimating equations (CIEE) method and compare it with traditional multiple regression methods, the structural equation modeling method, and sequential G-estimation methods through a simulation study for the analysis of (completely observed) quantitative traits and time-to-event traits subject to censoring as primary phenotypes. The results show that CIEE provides valid estimators and inference by successfully removing the effect of intermediate phenotypes from the primary phenotype and is robust against measured and unmeasured confounding of the indirect effect through observed factors. All other methods except the sequential G-estimation method for quantitative traits fail in some scenarios where their test statistics yield inflated type I errors. In the analysis of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 19 dataset, we estimate and test genetic effects on blood pressure accounting for intermediate gene expression phenotypes. The results show that CIEE can identify genetic variants that would be missed by traditional regression analyses. CIEE is computationally fast, widely applicable to different fields, and available as an R package.
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.