Analysis of binary responses with outcome-specific misclassification probability in genome-wide association studies.

IF 2.6 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY Application of Clinical Genetics Pub Date : 2016-11-30 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TACG.S122250
Romdhane Rekaya, Shannon Smith, El Hamidi Hay, Nourhene Farhat, Samuel E Aggrey
{"title":"Analysis of binary responses with outcome-specific misclassification probability in genome-wide association studies.","authors":"Romdhane Rekaya, Shannon Smith, El Hamidi Hay, Nourhene Farhat, Samuel E Aggrey","doi":"10.2147/TACG.S122250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Errors in the binary status of some response traits are frequent in human, animal, and plant applications. These error rates tend to differ between cases and controls because diagnostic and screening tests have different sensitivity and specificity. This increases the inaccuracies of classifying individuals into correct groups, giving rise to both false-positive and false-negative cases. The analysis of these noisy binary responses due to misclassification will undoubtedly reduce the statistical power of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). A threshold model that accommodates varying diagnostic errors between cases and controls was investigated. A simulation study was carried out where several binary data sets (case-control) were generated with varying effects for the most influential single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and different diagnostic error rate for cases and controls. Each simulated data set consisted of 2000 individuals. Ignoring misclassification resulted in biased estimates of true influential SNP effects and inflated estimates for true noninfluential markers. A substantial reduction in bias and increase in accuracy ranging from 12% to 32% was observed when the misclassification procedure was invoked. In fact, the majority of influential SNPs that were not identified using the noisy data were captured using the proposed method. Additionally, truly misclassified binary records were identified with high probability using the proposed method. The superiority of the proposed method was maintained across different simulation parameters (misclassification rates and odds ratios) attesting to its robustness.</p>","PeriodicalId":39131,"journal":{"name":"Application of Clinical Genetics","volume":"9 ","pages":"169-177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5138056/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Application of Clinical Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TACG.S122250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Errors in the binary status of some response traits are frequent in human, animal, and plant applications. These error rates tend to differ between cases and controls because diagnostic and screening tests have different sensitivity and specificity. This increases the inaccuracies of classifying individuals into correct groups, giving rise to both false-positive and false-negative cases. The analysis of these noisy binary responses due to misclassification will undoubtedly reduce the statistical power of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). A threshold model that accommodates varying diagnostic errors between cases and controls was investigated. A simulation study was carried out where several binary data sets (case-control) were generated with varying effects for the most influential single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and different diagnostic error rate for cases and controls. Each simulated data set consisted of 2000 individuals. Ignoring misclassification resulted in biased estimates of true influential SNP effects and inflated estimates for true noninfluential markers. A substantial reduction in bias and increase in accuracy ranging from 12% to 32% was observed when the misclassification procedure was invoked. In fact, the majority of influential SNPs that were not identified using the noisy data were captured using the proposed method. Additionally, truly misclassified binary records were identified with high probability using the proposed method. The superiority of the proposed method was maintained across different simulation parameters (misclassification rates and odds ratios) attesting to its robustness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析全基因组关联研究中具有特定结果误分类概率的二元反应。
在人类、动物和植物应用中,一些反应性状的二元状态经常出现错误。由于诊断和筛选测试具有不同的灵敏度和特异性,病例和对照之间的错误率往往不同。这增加了将个体归入正确组别的不准确性,导致假阳性和假阴性病例的出现。对这些因分类错误而产生的二元反应进行分析,无疑会降低全基因组关联研究(GWAS)的统计能力。我们研究了一种能适应病例和对照之间不同诊断误差的阈值模型。我们进行了一项模拟研究,生成了多个二元数据集(病例-对照),其中最有影响的单核苷酸多态性(SNPs)的效应各不相同,病例和对照的诊断错误率也各不相同。每个模拟数据集由 2000 个个体组成。忽略误分类会导致对真正有影响的 SNP 影响的估计值有偏差,而对真正无影响标记的估计值则会膨胀。当使用误分类程序时,偏差大幅减少,准确率提高了 12% 至 32%。事实上,使用所提出的方法可以捕捉到大部分未被噪声数据识别的有影响的 SNP。此外,使用所提出的方法,真正被错误分类的二进制记录被识别的概率也很高。拟议方法的优越性在不同的模拟参数(误分类率和几率)下都得以保持,这证明了它的稳健性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Application of Clinical Genetics
Application of Clinical Genetics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Genetics
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pathway of LCK Tyrosine Kinase and mTOR Signaling in Children with T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Comparison of Genetic, Auditory Features, and Systemic Clinical Phenotype in 14 Families with Syndromic Hearing Loss. Association of RIPK1 and RIPK2 Gene Polymorphisms with Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Chinese Han Population. Consanguinity and Occurrence of Monogenic Diseases in a Single Tertiary Centre in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A 2 Years Cross-Sectional Study. The Ser434Phe Androgen Receptor Gene Mutation Does Not Affect Fertility but is Associated with Increased Prolactin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1