4.6 Article

Sample size requirements for association studies of gene-gene interaction

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 155, 期 5, 页码 478-484

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.5.478

关键词

association; case-control studies; genetics; interaction; research design; sample size

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 52862] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES 10421, 5P30 ES 07048-03] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA052862] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R01ES010421, P30ES007048] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the study of complex diseases, it may be important to test hypotheses related to gene-gene (G x G) interaction. The success of such studies depends critically on obtaining adequate sample sizes. In this paper, the author investigates sample size requirements for studies of G x G interaction, focusing on four study designs: the matched-case-control design, the case-sibling design, the case-parent design, and the case-only design. All four designs provide an estimate of interaction on a multiplicative scale, which is used as a unifying theme in the comparison of sample size requirements. Across a variety of genetic models, the case-only and case-parent designs require fewer sampling units (cases and case-parent trios, respectively) than the case-control (pairs) or case-sibling (pairs) design. For example, the author describes an asthma study of two common recessive genes for which 270 matched case-control pairs would be required to detect a G x G interaction of moderate magnitude with 80% power. By comparison, the same study would require 319 case-sibling pairs but only 146 trios in the case-parent design or 116 cases in the case-only design. A software program that computes sample size for studies of G x G interaction and for studies of gene-environment (G x E) interaction is freely available (http://hydra.usc.edu/gxe).

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

4.6
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