↓ Skip to main content

Proper conditional analysis in the presence of missing data: Application to large scale meta-analysis of tobacco use phenotypes

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Genetics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Proper conditional analysis in the presence of missing data: Application to large scale meta-analysis of tobacco use phenotypes
Published in
PLoS Genetics, July 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007452
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu Jiang, Sai Chen, Daniel McGuire, Fang Chen, Mengzhen Liu, William G. Iacono, John K. Hewitt, John E. Hokanson, Kenneth Krauter, Markku Laakso, Kevin W. Li, Sharon M. Lutz, Matthew McGue, Anita Pandit, Gregory J. M. Zajac, Michael Boehnke, Goncalo R. Abecasis, Scott I. Vrieze, Xiaowei Zhan, Bibo Jiang, Dajiang J. Liu

Abstract

Meta-analysis of genetic association studies increases sample size and the power for mapping complex traits. Existing methods are mostly developed for datasets without missing values, i.e. the summary association statistics are measured for all variants in contributing studies. In practice, genotype imputation is not always effective. This may be the case when targeted genotyping/sequencing assays are used or when the un-typed genetic variant is rare. Therefore, contributed summary statistics often contain missing values. Existing methods for imputing missing summary association statistics and using imputed values in meta-analysis, approximate conditional analysis, or simple strategies such as complete case analysis all have theoretical limitations. Applying these approaches can bias genetic effect estimates and lead to seriously inflated type-I or type-II errors in conditional analysis, which is a critical tool for identifying independently associated variants. To address this challenge and complement imputation methods, we developed a method to combine summary statistics across participating studies and consistently estimate joint effects, even when the contributed summary statistics contain large amounts of missing values. Based on this estimator, we proposed a score statistic called PCBS (partial correlation based score statistic) for conditional analysis of single-variant and gene-level associations. Through extensive analysis of simulated and real data, we showed that the new method produces well-calibrated type-I errors and is substantially more powerful than existing approaches. We applied the proposed approach to one of the largest meta-analyses to date for the cigarettes-per-day phenotype. Using the new method, we identified multiple novel independently associated variants at known loci for tobacco use, which were otherwise missed by alternative methods. Together, the phenotypic variance explained by these variants was 1.1%, improving that of previously reported associations by 71%. These findings illustrate the extent of locus allelic heterogeneity and can help pinpoint causal variants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Engineering 2 10%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2019.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#7,053
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,944
of 323,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#109
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.