Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23104843›Full record

ArticleStatistical applications in genetics and molecular biology2012

Analyzing genetic association studies with an extended propensity score approach.

Huaqing Zhao, Timothy R Rebbeck, Nandita Mitra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Huaqing ZhaoThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
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

Propensity scores are commonly used to address confounding in observational studies. However, they have not been previously adapted to deal with bias in genetic association studies. We propose an extension of our previous method (Zhao et al., 2009) that uses a multilevel propensity score approach and allows one to estimate the effect of a genotype under an additive model and also simultaneously adjusts for confounders such as genetic ancestry and patient and disease characteristics. Using simulation studies, we demonstrate that this extended genetic propensity score (eGPS) can adequately adjust and consistently correct for bias due to confounding in a variety of circumstances. Under all simulation scenarios, the eGPS method yields estimates with bias close to 0 (mean=0.018, standard error=0.01). Our method also preserves statistical properties such as coverage probability, Type I error, and power. We illustrate this approach in a population-based genetic association study of testicular germ cell tumors and KITLG and SPRY4 susceptibility genes. We conclude that our method provides a novel and broadly applicable analytic strategy for obtaining less biased and more valid estimates of genetic associations.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPropensity ScoreGenetic Association StudiesGenetic MarkersGenome, HumanHumansIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsModels, StatisticalNeoplasms, Germ Cell and EmbryonalNerve Tissue ProteinsTesticular NeoplasmsGenetic MarkersIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsNerve Tissue ProteinsSPRY4 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID23104843
PMCPMC3518898

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.