Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30285617›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2018

Combining controls can improve power in two-stage association studies.

James Liley

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

James LileyDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. ajl88@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0049-8238
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh dimensional case control studies are ubiquitous in the biological sciences, particularly genomics. To maximise power while constraining cost and to minimise type-1 error rates, researchers typically seek to replicate findings in a second experiment on independent cohorts before proceeding with further analyses. This can be an expensive procedure, particularly when control samples are difficult to recruit or ascertain; for example in inter-disease comparisons, or studies on degenerative diseases.

resultsThis paper presents a method in which control (or case) samples from the discovery cohort are re-used in a replication study. The theoretical implications of this method are discussed and simulated genome-wide association study (GWAS) tests are used to compare performance against the standard approach in a range of circumstances. Using similar methods, a procedure is proposed for 'partial replication' using a new independent cohort consisting of only controls. This methods can be used to provide some validation of findings when a full replication procedure is not possible. The new method has differing sensitivity to confounding in study cohorts compared to the standard procedure, which must be considered in its application. Type-1 error rates in these scenarios are analytically and empirically derived, and an online tool for comparing power and error rates is provided.

conclusionsIn several common study designs, a shared-control method allows a substantial improvement in power while retaining type-1 error rate control. Although careful consideration must be made of all necessary assumptions, this method can enable more efficient use of data in GWAS and other applications.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalCase-Control StudiesComputer SimulationGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideCase-control studyGWASReplication

Identifiers

PMID30285617
PMCPMC6171163
OpenAlexW2611823114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.