4.3 Article

Upward bias in odds ratio estimates from genome-wide association studies

期刊

GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 288-295

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.20209

关键词

bias; estimation; association studies; multiple tests; genome-wide association

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA 58860-10, R01 CA 74415] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide association studies are carried out to identify unknown genes for a complex trait. Polymorphisms showing the most statistically significant associations are reported and followed up in subsequent confirmatory studies. In addition to the test of association, the statistical analysis provides point estimates of the relationship between the genotype and phenotype at each polymorphism, typically an odds ratio in case-control association studies. The statistical significance of the test and the estimator of the odds ratio are completely correlated. Selecting the most extreme statistics is equivalent to selecting the most extreme odds ratios. The value of the estimator, given the value of the statistical significance depends on the standard error of the estimator and the power of the study. This report shows that when power is low, estimates of the odds ratio from a genome-wide association study, or any large-scale association study, will be upwardly biased. Genome-wide association studies are often underpowered given the low a levels required to declare statistical significance and the small individual genetic effects known to characterize complex traits. Factors such as low allele frequency, inadequate sample size and weak genetic effects contribute to large standard errors in the odds ratio estimates, low power and upwardly biased odds ratios. Studies that have high power to detect an association with the true odds ratio will have little or no bias, regardless of the statistical significance threshold. The results have implications for the interpretation of genome-wide association analysis and the planning of subsequent confirmatory stages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据