Genome-wide association analysis of secondary imaging phenotypes from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative study
Wensheng Zhu, Ying Yuan, Jingwen Zhang, Fan Zhou, Rebecca C Knickmeyer, Hongtu Zhu, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. NeuroImage, 2016-10-04
Topic: Genetics and APOE
The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate a biased sampling issue associated with genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) of imaging phenotypes for most imaging genetic studies, including the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Specifically, the original sampling scheme of these imaging genetic studies is primarily the retrospective case-control design, whereas most existing statistical analyses of these studies ignore such sampling scheme by directly correlating imaging phenotypes (called the secondary traits) with genotype. Although it has been well documented in genetic epidemiology that ignoring the case-control sampling scheme can produce highly biased estimates, and subsequently lead to misleading results and suspicious associations, such findings are not well documented in imaging genetics. We use extensive simulations and a large-scale imaging genetic data analysis of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data to evaluate the effects of the case-control sampling scheme on GWAS results based on some standard statistical methods, such as linear regression methods, while comparing it with several advanced statistical methods that appropriately adjust for the case-control sampling scheme.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhu, W., Yuan, Y., Zhang, J., Zhou, F., Knickmeyer, R. C., Zhu, H., et al. (2017). Genome-wide association analysis of secondary imaging phenotypes from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative study. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.055
Vancouver
Zhu W, Yuan Y, Zhang J, Zhou F, Knickmeyer RC, Zhu H, et al. Genome-wide association analysis of secondary imaging phenotypes from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative study. NeuroImage. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.055. PMID: 27717770.
BibTeX
@article{zhu2017-27717770,
author = {Zhu, Wensheng and Yuan, Ying and Zhang, Jingwen and Zhou, Fan and Knickmeyer, Rebecca C and Zhu, Hongtu and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Genome-wide association analysis of secondary imaging phenotypes from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative study}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.055},
pmid = {27717770},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.055}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate a biased sampling issue associated with genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) of imaging phenotypes for most imaging genetic studies, including the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI).
- Although it has been well documented in genetic epidemiology that ignoring the case-control sampling scheme can produce highly biased estimates, and subsequently lead to misleading results and suspicious associations, such findings are not well documented in imaging genetics.
- We use extensive simulations and a large-scale imaging genetic data analysis of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data to evaluate the effects of the case-control sampling scheme on GWAS results based on some standard statistical methods, such as linear regression methods, while comparing it with several advanced statistical methods that appropriately adjust for the case-control sampling scheme.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 54/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27717770) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 30 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100. |
| Total | 54 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Genetics
Also tagged “genetics”
346 studies in the library carry the topic tag “genetics”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 346 tagged studies.