ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2020
Analysis in case-control sequencing association studies with different sequencing depths.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating External Controls by Regression Calibration for Genome-Wide Association Study.Genes · 2024Article
- Opportunities and challenges for the use of common controls in sequencing studies.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2022Review
- Integrating external controls in case-control studies improves power for rare-variant tests.Genetic epidemiology · 2022Article
- A data harmonization pipeline to leverage external controls and boost power in GWAS.Human molecular genetics · 2022Article
- Current Status of Next-Generation Sequencing Approaches for Candidate Gene Discovery in Familial Parkinson´s Disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Recent advances and challenges of rare variant association analysis in the biobank sequencing era.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Novel score test to increase power in association test by integrating external controls.Genetic epidemiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the advent of next-generation sequencing, investigators have access to higher quality sequencing data. However, to sequence all samples in a study using next generation sequencing can still be prohibitively expensive. One potential remedy could be to combine next generation sequencing data from cases with publicly available sequencing data for controls, but there could be a systematic difference in quality of sequenced data, such as sequencing depths, between sequenced study cases and publicly available controls. We propose a regression calibration (RC)-based method and a maximum-likelihood method for conducting an association study with such a combined sample by accounting for differential sequencing errors between cases and controls. The methods allow for adjusting for covariates, such as population stratification as confounders. Both methods control type I error and have comparable power to analysis conducted using the true genotype with sufficiently high but different sequencing depths. We show that the RC method allows for analysis using naive variance estimate (closely approximates true variance in practice) and standard software under certain circumstances. We evaluate the performance of the proposed methods using simulation studies and apply our methods to a combined data set of exome sequenced acute lung injury cases and healthy controls from the 1000 Genomes project.
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.