Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30669967›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Real world scenarios in rare variant association analysis: the impact of imbalance and sample size on the power in silico.

Xinyuan Zhang, Anna O Basile, Sarah A Pendergrass, Marylyn D Ritchie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Genetic Analysis of Functional Rare Germline Variants across Nine Cancer Types from an Electronic Health Record Linked Biobank.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Statistical Impact of Sample Size and Imbalance on Multivariate AnalysisAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020
    Article
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

4 authors.

Xinyuan ZhangGenomics and Computational Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anna O BasileDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Sarah A PendergrassBiomedical and Translational Informatics Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA, USA.
Marylyn D RitchieGenomics and Computational Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. marylyn@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

Pharmacogenomics of HIV TherapyR01AI077505 · NIAID · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI HAAS, DAVID W · 2008 to 2025
$12.3M
Biomedical Computing and Informatics Strategies for Infectious Disease ResearchR01AI116794 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases AI077505National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases AI116794NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI077505NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI116794Pennsylvania Department of Health SAP 4100070267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of sequencing techniques and statistical methods provides great opportunities for identifying the impact of rare genetic variation on complex traits. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the impact of sample size, case numbers, the balance of cases vs controls for both burden and dispersion based rare variant association methods. For example, Phenome-Wide Association Studies may have a wide range of case and control sample sizes across hundreds of diagnoses and traits, and with the application of statistical methods to rare variants, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations of the analyses.

resultsWe conducted a large-scale simulation of randomly selected low-frequency protein-coding regions using twelve different balanced samples with an equal number of cases and controls as well as twenty-one unbalanced sample scenarios. We further explored statistical performance of different minor allele frequency thresholds and a range of genetic effect sizes. Our simulation results demonstrate that using an unbalanced study design has an overall higher type I error rate for both burden and dispersion tests compared with a balanced study design. Regression has an overall higher type I error with balanced cases and controls, while SKAT has higher type I error for unbalanced case-control scenarios. We also found that both type I error and power were driven by the number of cases in addition to the case to control ratio under large control group scenarios. Based on our power simulations, we observed that a SKAT analysis with case numbers larger than 200 for unbalanced case-control models yielded over 90% power with relatively well controlled type I error. To achieve similar power in regression, over 500 cases are needed. Moreover, SKAT showed higher power to detect associations in unbalanced case-control scenarios than regression.

conclusionsOur results provide important insights into rare variant association study designs by providing a landscape of type I error and statistical power for a wide range of sample sizes. These results can serve as a benchmark for making decisions about study design for rare variant analyses.

Indexed as

Sample SizeComputer SimulationGenetic Association StudiesHumansModels, GeneticResearch DesignPower analysisRare variant association analysisSample size imbalanceSimulation study

Identifiers

PMID30669967
PMCPMC6343276

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.