Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19353632›Full record

ArticleGenetic epidemiology2009

A propensity score approach to correction for bias due to population stratification using genetic and non-genetic factors.

Huaqing Zhao, Timothy R Rebbeck, Nandita Mitra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Analyzing genetic association studies with an extended propensity score approach.Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology · 2012
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Correcting for Population Stratification in Genomewide Association Studies.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2011
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Huaqing ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, 19104-6021, USA.
Timothy R Rebbeck
Nandita Mitra

Funding

Segregation and Racial Disparities in Prostate CancerP50CA105641 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI REBBECK, TIMOTHY R · 2003 to 2009
$9.6M
MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF PROSTATE CANCERR01CA085074 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI REBBECK, TIMOTHY R · 1999 to 2010
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA105641NCI NIH HHS P50-CA105641NCI NIH HHS R01 CA085074NCI NIH HHS R01-CA08574
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confounding due to population stratification (PS) arises when differences in both allele and disease frequencies exist in a population of mixed racial/ethnic subpopulations. Genomic control, structured association, principal components analysis (PCA), and multidimensional scaling (MDS) approaches have been proposed to address this bias using genetic markers. However, confounding due to PS can also be due to non-genetic factors. Propensity scores are widely used to address confounding in observational studies but have not been adapted to deal with PS in genetic association studies. We propose a genomic propensity score (GPS) approach to correct for bias due to PS that considers both genetic and non-genetic factors. We compare the GPS method with PCA and MDS using simulation studies. Our results show that GPS can adequately adjust and consistently correct for bias due to PS. Under no/mild, moderate, and severe PS, GPS yielded estimated with bias close to 0 (mean=-0.0044, standard error=0.0087). Under moderate or severe PS, the GPS method consistently outperforms the PCA method in terms of bias, coverage probability (CP), and type I error. Under moderate PS, the GPS method consistently outperforms the MDS method in terms of CP. PCA maintains relatively high power compared to both MDS and GPS methods under the simulated situations. GPS and MDS are comparable in terms of statistical properties such as bias, type I error, and power. The GPS method provides a novel and robust tool for obtaining less-biased estimates of genetic associations that can consider both genetic and non-genetic factors.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalPopulation GroupsPropensity ScoreAlgorithmsBiasComputer SimulationEthnicityGenetic Association StudiesGenetic MarkersGenome, HumanHumansModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID19353632
PMCPMC4537699

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.