ArticlePloS one2009
A kinship-based modification of the armitage trend test to address hidden population structure and small differential genotyping errors.
Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic association models are robust to common population kinship estimation biases.Genetics · 2023Article
- Estimating FST and kinship for arbitrary population structures.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
- The identification of 14 new genes for meat quality traits in chicken using a genome-wide association study.BMC genomics · 2013Article
- ETHNOPRED: a novel machine learning method for accurate continental and sub-continental ancestry identification and population stratification correction.BMC bioinformatics · 2013Article
- Analysis of family- and population-based samples in cohort genome-wide association studies.Human genetics · 2012Article
- A comparison of association methods correcting for population stratification in case-control studies.Annals of human genetics · 2011Article
- Effective sample size: Quick estimation of the effect of related samples in genetic case-control association analyses.Computational biology and chemistry · 2011Article
- Comparison of multimarker logistic regression models, with application to a genomewide scan of schizophrenia.BMC genetics · 2010Article
- The potential for enhancing the power of genetic association studies in African Americans through the reuse of existing genotype data.PLoS genetics · 2010Article
- New approaches to population stratification in genome-wide association studies.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2010Review
- Exploring genetic susceptibility to cancer in diverse populations.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2010Review
- Variance component model to account for sample structure in genome-wide association studies.Nature genetics · 2010Article
- ROADTRIPS: case-control association testing with partially or completely unknown population and pedigree structure.American journal of human genetics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsWe propose a modification of the well-known Armitage trend test to address the problems associated with hidden population structure and hidden relatedness in genome-wide case-control association studies.
methodsThe new test adopts beneficial traits from three existing testing strategies: the principal components, mixed model, and genomic control while avoiding some of their disadvantageous characteristics, such as the tendency of the principal components method to over-correct in certain situations or the failure of the genomic control approach to reorder the adjusted tests based on their degree of alignment with the underlying hidden structure. The new procedure is based on Gauss-Markov estimators derived from a straightforward linear model with an imposed variance structure proportional to an empirical relatedness matrix. Lastly, conceptual and analytical similarities to and distinctions from other approaches are emphasized throughout.
resultsOur simulations show that the power performance of the proposed test is quite promising compared to the considered competing strategies. The power gains are especially large when small differential differences between cases and controls are present; a likely scenario when public controls are used in multiple studies.
conclusionThe proposed modified approach attains high power more consistently than that of the existing commonly implemented tests. Its performance improvement is most apparent when small but detectable systematic differences between cases and controls exist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.