The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of Violations and Deviations in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium on Postulated Gene-Disease Associations
Abstract
The authors evaluated whether statistically significant violations of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) or the magnitude of deviations from HWE may contribute to the problem of replicating postulated gene-disease associations across different studies. Forty-two gene-disease associations assessed in meta-analyses of 591 studies were examined. Studies with disease-free controls in which HWE was violated gave significantly different results from HWE-conforming studies in five instances. Exclusion of the former studies resulted in loss of statistical significance of the overall meta-analysis in three instances and more than a 10% change in the summary odds ratio in six. Exclusion of HWE-violating studies changed the formal significance of the estimated between-study heterogeneity in three instances. After adjustment for the magnitude of the deviation from HWE for the controls, formal significance was lost in another three instances. Studies adjusted for the magnitude of deviation from HWE tended to become more heterogeneous among themselves, and, for seven gene-disease associations, between-study heterogeneity became significant, while it was not so in the unadjusted analyses. Gene-disease association studies and meta-analyses thereof should routinely scrutinize the potential impact of HWE violations as well as nonsignificant deviations from the exact frequencies expected under HWE. Postulated genetic associations with modest-sized odds ratios and borderline statistical significance may not be robust in such sensitivity analyses.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Self-citationWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 1×
“Alternatively, inferences should take into consideration not only the p value but also the prestudy probability that a postulated association is true and the potential for bias (64, 65).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPublication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109 · cited 1×
“Various reasons have been proposed for this phenomenon, including, among others, exaggerated early results (3), publication bias and time-lag bias against ‘‘negative’’ studies (3, 6), differences between small and larger studies (7), and population stratification and ‘‘racial/ethnic’’ heterogeneity (8).”
BackgroundQuantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008 · Cited by 2,517 · cited 1×
“10) (18), and we estimated its extent with the I(2) statistic (19).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLohmueller, K. E., Pearce, C. L., Pike, M., Lander, E. S., & Hirschhorn, J. N. (2003) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1071 · Cited by 1,900
A comprehensive review of genetic association studies
Hirschhorn, J. N., Lohmueller, K., Byrne, E., & Hirschhorn, K. (2002) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/00125817-200203000-00002 · Cited by 1,674
Anguelova, M., Benkelfat, C., & Turecki, G. (2003) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001336 · Cited by 421
Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials: How Do Their Results Compare?
Cappelleri, J. C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160054033 · Cited by 336
TGFBR1*6A and Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 12 Case-Control Studies
Pasche, B., Kaklamani, V., Hou, N., Young, T., Rademaker, A., Peterlongo, P., Ellis, N., Offit, K., Caldes, T., Reiss, M., et al. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.99.271 · Cited by 88
Cited by
Systematic meta-analyses of Alzheimer disease genetic association studies: the AlzGene database
Bertram, L., McQueen, M. B., Mullin, K., Blacker, D., & Tanzi, R. E. (2007) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1934 · Cited by 1,857
Little, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Moher, D., Gagnon, F., von Elm, E., Khoury, M. J., Cohen, B., Davey-Smith, G., Grimshaw, J., et al. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022 · Cited by 811
Self-citationGratacòs, M., González, J. R., Mercader, J. M., de Cid, R., Urretavizcaya, M., & Estivill, X. (2007) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.08.025 · Cited by 428
Chen, S.-W., Zhong, X.-S., Jiang, L.-N., Zheng, X.-Y., Xiong, Y.-Q., Ma, S.-J., Qiu, M., Huo, S.-T., Ge, J., & Chen, Q. (2016) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2015.08.035 · Cited by 194
A Review of Genetic Association Studies of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Field Synopsis and Meta-Analysis
Varvarigou, V., Dahabreh, I. J., Malhotra, A., & Kales, S. N. (2011) · Sleep · doi:10.5665/sleep.1376 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Trikalinos, T. A., Salanti, G., Khoury, M. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-01-12
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 300-309
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2136222333
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 13.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
