ArticleStatistical applications in genetics and molecular biology2012
Analyzing genetic association studies with an extended propensity score approach.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A practical approach to adjusting for population stratification in genome-wide association studies: principal components and propensity scores (PCAPS).Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology · 2018Article
- Parental smoking during pregnancy and offspring cardio-metabolic risk factors at ages 17 and 32.Atherosclerosis · 2014Article
- Associations of maternal pre-pregnancy and gestational body size with offspring longitudinal change in BMI.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.