Cited by 35Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsForensic and Genetic Research

Power comparisons between similarity‐based multilocus association methods, logistic regression, and score tests for haplotypes

Open access
Lin, Wan‐Yu, Schaid, Daniel J.·2009·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Recently, a genomic distance‐based regression for multilocus associations was proposed (Wessel and Schork [2006] Am. J. Hum. Genet. 79:792–806) in which either locus or haplotype scoring can be used to measure genetic distance. Although it allows various measures of genomic similarity and simultaneous analyses of multiple phenotypes, its power relative to other methods for case‐control analyses is not well known. We compare the power of traditional methods with this new distance‐based approach, for both locus‐scoring and haplotype‐scoring strategies. We discuss the relative power of these association methods with respect to five properties: (1) the marker informativity; (2) the number of markers; (3) the causal allele frequency; (4) the preponderance of the most common high‐risk haplotype; (5) the correlation between the causal single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and its flanking markers. We found that locus‐based logistic regression and the global score test for haplotypes suffered from power loss when many markers were included in the analyses, due to many degrees of freedom. In contrast, the distance‐based approach was not as vulnerable to more markers or more haplotypes. A genotype counting measure was more sensitive to the marker informativity and the correlation between the causal SNP and its flanking markers. After examining the impact of the five properties on power, we found that on average, the genomic distance‐based regression that uses a matching measure for diplotypes was the most powerful and robust method among the seven methods we compared. Genet. Epidemiol. 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gepi.20364

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similarity-based strategies can be as powerful, if not more so, than some traditional tests of association in many settings involving common variations.

    “Many recent papers have described flexible strategies for testing genetic associations that leverage individual sequence similarity information,20, 52–57 and it has been shown that such strategies can be as powerful, if not more so, than some traditional tests of association in many settings involving common variations.58”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, W., & Schaid, D. J.
Affiliations
  • National Taiwan University (TW)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Schaid, Daniel J.
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09-22
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
183-197
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W2111503388
Cited by
35
References
44
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Council
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM065450, R01GM065450)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
Keywords
statistical power, logistic regression, score test, case-control association, diplotypes, single nucleotide polymorphisms, marker correlation
MeSH terms
Alleles, Genetic Markers, Genetic Techniques, Genotype, Haplotypes, Genetic Linkage, Mathematics, Models, Genetic, Logistic Models, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review