Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20003414›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009

Effects of normalization on quantitative traits in association test.

Liang Goh, Von Bing Yap

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Preparation and Curation of Omics Data for Genome-Wide Association Studies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genetic Architecture of Early Vigor Traits in Wild Soybean.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. GWAS with principal component analysis identifies a gene comprehensively controlling rice architecture.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Liang GohCancer & Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore. liang.goh@duke-nus.edu.sg
Von Bing Yap

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantitative trait loci analysis assumes that the trait is normally distributed. In reality, this is often not observed and one strategy is to transform the trait. However, it is not clear how much normality is required and which transformation works best in association studies.

resultsWe performed simulations on four types of common quantitative traits to evaluate the effects of normalization using the logarithm, Box-Cox, and rank-based transformations. The impact of sample size and genetic effects on normalization is also investigated. Our results show that rank-based transformation gives generally the best and consistent performance in identifying the causal polymorphism and ranking it highly in association tests, with a slight increase in false positive rate.

conclusionFor small sample size or genetic effects, the improvement in sensitivity for rank transformation outweighs the slight increase in false positive rate. However, for large sample size and genetic effects, normalization may not be necessary since the increase in sensitivity is relatively modest.

Indexed as

Quantitative Trait LociComputational BiologyGenetic VariationPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSample Size

Identifiers

PMID20003414
PMCPMC2800123

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.