Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25435800›Full record

ArticleCurrent genomics2014

A graphical weighted power improving multiplicity correction approach for SNP selections.

Garrett Saunders, Guifang Fu, John R Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Garrett SaundersDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
Guifang FuDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
John R StevensDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlling for the multiplicity effect is an essential part of determining statistical significance in large-scale single-locus association genome scans on Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs). Bonferroni adjustment is a commonly used approach due to its simplicity, but is conservative and has low power for large-scale tests. The permutation test, which is a powerful and popular tool, is computationally expensive and may mislead in the presence of family structure. We propose a computationally efficient and powerful multiple testing correction approach for Linkage Disequilibrium (LD) based Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) mapping on the basis of graphical weighted-Bonferroni methods. The proposed multiplicity adjustment method synthesizes weighted Bonferroni-based closed testing procedures into a powerful and versatile graphical approach. By tailoring different priorities for the two hypothesis tests involved in LD based QTL mapping, we are able to increase power and maintain computational efficiency and conceptual simplicity. The proposed approach enables strong control of the familywise error rate (FWER). The performance of the proposed approach as compared to the standard Bonferroni correction is illustrated by simulation and real data. We observe a consistent and moderate increase in power under all simulated circumstances, among different sample sizes, heritabilities, and number of SNPs. We also applied the proposed method to a real outbred mouse HDL cholesterol QTL mapping project where we detected the significant QTLs that were highlighted in the literature, while still ensuring strong control of the FWER.

Indexed as

Graphical weighted approachHypothesis testingLinkage disequilibrium.Multiple correctionQTL

Identifiers

PMID25435800
PMCPMC4245697

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.