ArticleGenetic epidemiology2014
Flexible and robust methods for rare-variant testing of quantitative traits in trios and nuclear families.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review of kernel methods for genetic association studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2019Review
- Article
- Robust Rare-Variant Association Tests For Quantitative Traits in General Pedigrees.Statistics in biosciences · 2018Article
- Powerful and robust cross-phenotype association test for case-parent trios.Genetic epidemiology · 2018Article
- Increasing Generality and Power of Rare-Variant Tests by Utilizing Extended Pedigrees.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
- A Statistical Approach for Testing Cross-Phenotype Effects of Rare Variants.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
- Approximate score-based testing with application to multivariate trait association analysis.Genetic epidemiology · 2015Article
- A statistical approach for rare-variant association testing in affected sibships.American journal of human genetics · 2015Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Most rare-variant association tests for complex traits are applicable only to population-based or case-control resequencing studies. There are fewer rare-variant association tests for family-based resequencing studies, which is unfortunate because pedigrees possess many attractive characteristics for such analyses. Family-based studies can be more powerful than their population-based counterparts due to increased genetic load and further enable the implementation of rare-variant association tests that, by design, are robust to confounding due to population stratification. With this in mind, we propose a rare-variant association test for quantitative traits in families; this test integrates the QTDT approach of Abecasis et al. [Abecasis et al., ] into the kernel-based SNP association test KMFAM of Schifano et al. [Schifano et al., ]. The resulting within-family test enjoys the many benefits of the kernel framework for rare-variant association testing, including rapid evaluation of P-values and preservation of power when a region harbors rare causal variation that acts in different directions on phenotype. Additionally, by design, this within-family test is robust to confounding due to population stratification. Although within-family association tests are generally less powerful than their counterparts that use all genetic information, we show that we can recover much of this power (although still ensuring robustness to population stratification) using a straightforward screening procedure. Our method accommodates covariates and allows for missing parental genotype data, and we have written software implementing the approach in R for public use.
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.