Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228527›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2020

Mixed logistic regression in genome-wide association studies.

Jacqueline Milet, David Courtin, André Garcia, Hervé Perdry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Jacqueline MiletUniversité de Paris, MERIT, IRD, 75006, Paris, France.
David CourtinUniversité de Paris, MERIT, IRD, 75006, Paris, France.
André GarciaUniversité de Paris, MERIT, IRD, 75006, Paris, France.
Hervé PerdryUniversité Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Inserm, CESP, 94807, Villejuif, France. herve.perdry@inserm.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-1678

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMixed linear models (MLM) have been widely used to account for population structure in case-control genome-wide association studies, the status being analyzed as a quantitative phenotype. Chen et al. proved in 2016 that this method is inappropriate in some situations and proposed GMMAT, a score test for the mixed logistic regression (MLR). However, this test does not produces an estimation of the variants' effects. We propose two computationally efficient methods to estimate the variants' effects. Their properties and those of other methods (MLM, logistic regression) are evaluated using both simulated and real genomic data from a recent GWAS in two geographically close population in West Africa.

resultsWe show that, when the disease prevalence differs between population strata, MLM is inappropriate to analyze binary traits. MLR performs the best in all circumstances. The variants' effects are well evaluated by our methods, with a moderate bias when the effect sizes are large. Additionally, we propose a stratified QQ-plot, enhancing the diagnosis of p values inflation or deflation when population strata are not clearly identified in the sample.

conclusionThe two proposed methods are implemented in the R package milorGWAS available on the CRAN. Both methods scale up to at least 10,000 individuals. The same computational strategies could be applied to other models (e.g. mixed Cox model for survival analysis).

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyBiasComputer SimulationGenetics, PopulationGenotypeHumansLogistic ModelsMalariaModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrincipal Component AnalysisSample SizeTime FactorsGWASLogistic regressionMixed-models

Identifiers

PMID33228527
PMCPMC7684894

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.