Cited by 25Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceBRCA gene mutations in cancer

Hierarchical Modeling for Estimating Relative Risks of Rare Genetic Variants: Properties of the Pseudo-Likelihood Method

Open access
Capanu, Marinela, Begg, Colin B.·2011·Biometrics

Abstract

Many major genes have been identified that strongly influence the risk of cancer. However, there are typically many different mutations that can occur in the gene, each of which may or may not confer increased risk. It is critical to identify which specific mutations are harmful, and which ones are harmless, so that individuals who learn from genetic testing that they have a mutation can be appropriately counseled. This is a challenging task, since new mutations are continually being identified, and there is typically relatively little evidence available about each individual mutation. In an earlier article, we employed hierarchical modeling (Capanu et al., 2008, Statistics in Medicine 27, 1973-1992) using the pseudo-likelihood and Gibbs sampling methods to estimate the relative risks of individual rare variants using data from a case-control study and showed that one can draw strength from the aggregating power of hierarchical models to distinguish the variants that contribute to cancer risk. However, further research is needed to validate the application of asymptotic methods to such sparse data. In this article, we use simulations to study in detail the properties of the pseudo-likelihood method for this purpose. We also explore two alternative approaches: pseudo-likelihood with correction for the variance component estimate as proposed by Lin and Breslow (1996, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 1007-1016) and a hybrid pseudo-likelihood approach with Bayesian estimation of the variance component. We investigate the validity of these hierarchical modeling techniques by looking at the bias and coverage properties of the estimators as well as at the efficiency of the hierarchical modeling estimates relative to that of the maximum likelihood estimates. The results indicate that the estimates of the relative risks of very sparse variants have small bias, and that the estimated 95% confidence intervals are typically anti-conservative, though the actual coverage rates are generally above 90%. The widths of the confidence intervals narrow as the residual variance in the second-stage model is reduced. The results also show that the hierarchical modeling estimates have shorter confidence intervals relative to estimates obtained from conventional logistic regression, and that these relative improvements increase as the variants become more rare.

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 · 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01469.x

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Ridge regression and LASSO have been considered in genetic association analysis contexts, and other methods have been proposed.

    “Two such techniques, ridge regression74 and the LASSO75,76 have been considered in genetic association analysis contexts, and other methods have also been proposed as well.77–80, 81”

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
Capanu, M., & Begg, C. B.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Capanu, Marinela
Venue
Biometrics
Published
2010-08-05
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
371-380
ISSN
0006-341X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984141496
Cited by
25
References
26
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biometrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA 83180, CA097397, R01CA097397, CA 131010, R01CA131010, U01CA083180, R01CA129639)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Keywords
rare variants, relative risk estimation, pseudo-likelihood, hierarchical models, variance components, cancer susceptibility, case-control study, data sparsity, confidence interval coverage, estimation bias, maximum likelihood comparison, genetic testing
MeSH terms
Genetic Testing, Humans, Mutation, Neoplasms, Risk, Risk Factors, Genetic Variation, Likelihood Functions, Case-Control 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