Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30920058›Full record

SynthesisGenetic epidemiology2019

Subset testing and analysis of multiple phenotypes.

Andriy Derkach, Ruth M Pfeiffer

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Genetic epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Andriy DerkachDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Ruth M PfeifferDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.

Funding

Methods for Epidemiology StudiesZIACP010181 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI ALBERT, PAUL · 2009 to 2025
$34.8M
Genetic Modifiers of Cancer RiskZIACP010142 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI MIRABELLO, LISA · 2009 to 2025
$17.1M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis of multiple genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is effective for detecting single- or multimarker associations with complex traits. We develop a flexible procedure (subset testing and analysis of multiple phenotypes [STAMP]) based on mixture models to perform a region-based meta-analysis of different phenotypes using data from different GWAS and identify subsets of associated phenotypes. Our model framework helps distinguish true associations from between-study heterogeneity. As a measure of association, we compute for each phenotype the posterior probability that the genetic region under investigation is truly associated. Extensive simulations show that STAMP is more powerful than standard approaches for meta-analyses when the proportion of truly associated outcomes is between 25% and 50%. For other settings, the power of STAMP is similar to that of existing methods. We illustrate our method on two examples, the association of a region on chromosome 9p21 with the risk of 14 cancers, and the associations of expression of quantitative trait loci from two genetic regions with their cis-single-nucleotide polymorphisms measured in 17 tissue types using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesComputer SimulationGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansModels, GeneticNeoplasmsPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait Locigene-based testheterogeneitymeta-analysismixture model

Identifiers

PMID30920058
PMCPMC8809707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.