Cited by 18Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Genetic analysis suggests high misassignment rates in clinical Alzheimer's cases and controls

Open access
Escott-Price, Valentina, Baker, Emily, Shoai, Maryam, Leonenko, Ganna, Myers, Amanda J., Huentelman, Matt, Hardy, John·2019·Neurobiology of Aging

Abstract

Genetic case-control association studies are often based on clinically ascertained cases and population or convenience controls. It is known that some of the controls will contain cases, as they are usually not screened for the disease of interest. However, even clinically assessed cases and controls can be misassigned. For Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to know the accuracy of the clinical assignment. The predictive accuracy of AD risk by polygenic risk score analysis has been reported in both clinical and pathologically confirmed cohorts. The genetic risk prediction can provide additional insights to inform classification of subjects to case and control sets at a preclinical stage. In this study, we take a mathematical approach and aim to assess the importance of a genetic component for the assignment of subjects to AD-positive and -negative groups, and provide an estimate of misassignment rates (MARs) in AD case/control cohorts accounting for genetic prediction modeling results. The derived formulae provide a tool to estimate MARs in any sample. This approach can also provide an estimate of the maximal and minimal MARs and therefore could be useful for statistical power estimation at the study design stage. We illustrate this approach in 2 independent clinical cohorts and estimate misdiagnosis rate up to 36% in controls unscreened for the APOE genotype, and up to 29% when E3 homozygous subjects are used as controls in clinical studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.12.002

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Escott-Price, V., Baker, E., Shoai, M., Leonenko, G., Myers, A. J., Huentelman, M., & Hardy, J.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Hardy, John
Venue
Neurobiology of Aging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
77
Pages
178-182
ISSN
0197-4580 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914685835
Cited by
18
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01-AG-034504)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, polygenic risk score, APOE genotype, diagnostic accuracy, statistical power estimation, genetic risk prediction
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Apolipoproteins E, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Genotype, Humans, Male, Risk, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, Genetic Association Studies

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