ArticlePLoS genetics2010
The potential for enhancing the power of genetic association studies in African Americans through the reuse of existing genotype data.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring regional aspects of 3D facial variation within European individuals.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Genome-Wide Association Studies of Cancer in Diverse Populations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018Review
- Characterization of genetic loci that affect susceptibility to inflammatory bowel diseases in African Americans.Gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Red blood cell alloimmunization in sickle cell disease: listen to your ancestors.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2014Review
- The role of local ancestry adjustment in association studies using admixed populations.Genetic epidemiology · 2014Article
- Genetic epidemiology with a capital E: where will we be in another 10 years?Genetic epidemiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We consider the feasibility of reusing existing control data obtained in genetic association studies in order to reduce costs for new studies. We discuss controlling for the population differences between cases and controls that are implicit in studies utilizing external control data. We give theoretical calculations of the statistical power of a test due to Bourgain et al (Am J Human Genet 2003), applied to the problem of dealing with case-control differences in genetic ancestry related to population isolation or population admixture. Theoretical results show that there may exist bounds for the non-centrality parameter for a test of association that places limits on study power even if sample sizes can grow arbitrarily large. We apply this method to data from a multi-center, geographically-diverse, genome-wide association study of breast cancer in African-American women. Our analysis of these data shows that admixture proportions differ by center with the average fraction of European admixture ranging from approximately 20% for participants from study sites in the Eastern United States to 25% for participants from West Coast sites. However, these differences in average admixture fraction between sites are largely counterbalanced by considerable diversity in individual admixture proportion within each study site. Our results suggest that statistical correction for admixture differences is feasible for future studies of African-Americans, utilizing the existing controls from the African-American Breast Cancer study, even if case ascertainment for the future studies is not balanced over the same centers or regions that supplied the controls for the current study.
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.