There have been recent proposals advocating the use of additive gene-environment interaction instead of the widely used multiplicative scale, as a more relevant public health measure. Using gene-environment independence enhances the power for testing multiplicative interaction in case-control studies. However, under departure from this assumption, substantial bias in the estimates and inflated Type I error in the corresponding tests can occur. This paper extends the empirical Bayes (EB) approach previously developed for multiplicative interaction that trades off between bias and efficiency in a data-adaptive way, to the additive scale. An EB estimator of Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction is derived and the corresponding Wald test is proposed with general regression setting under a retrospective likelihood framework. We study the impact of gene-environment association on the resultant test with case-control data. Our simulation studies suggest that the EB approach uses the gene-environment independence assumption in a data-adaptive way and provides power gain compared to the standard logistic regression analysis and better control of Type I error when compared to the analysis assuming gene-environment independence. We illustrate the methods with data from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium.
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 03 May 2019.
All research outputs
#14,266,012
of 23,306,612 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Epidemiology
#7,829
of 9,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,688
of 318,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Epidemiology
#147
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,306,612 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 318,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
