Literature DB >> 15026468

Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies.

Sholom Wacholder1, Stephen Chanock, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Laure El Ghormli, Nathaniel Rothman.   

Abstract

Too many reports of associations between genetic variants and common cancer sites and other complex diseases are false positives. A major reason for this unfortunate situation is the strategy of declaring statistical significance based on a P value alone, particularly, any P value below.05. The false positive report probability (FPRP), the probability of no true association between a genetic variant and disease given a statistically significant finding, depends not only on the observed P value but also on both the prior probability that the association between the genetic variant and the disease is real and the statistical power of the test. In this commentary, we show how to assess the FPRP and how to use it to decide whether a finding is deserving of attention or "noteworthy." We show how this approach can lead to improvements in the design, analysis, and interpretation of molecular epidemiology studies. Our proposal can help investigators, editors, and readers of research articles to protect themselves from overinterpreting statistically significant findings that are not likely to signify a true association. An FPRP-based criterion for deciding whether to call a finding noteworthy formalizes the process already used informally by investigators--that is, tempering enthusiasm for remarkable study findings with considerations of plausibility.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15026468      PMCID: PMC7713993          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  29 in total

1.  Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor.

Authors:  S N Goodman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-06-15       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?

Authors:  J A Sterne; G Davey Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

3.  Replication validity of genetic association studies.

Authors:  J P Ioannidis; E E Ntzani; T A Trikalinos; D G Contopoulos-Ioannidis
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Variants in DNA double-strand break repair genes and breast cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Bettina Kuschel; Annika Auranen; Simon McBride; Karen L Novik; Antonis Antoniou; Julian M Lipscombe; Nicholas E Day; Douglas F Easton; Bruce A J Ponder; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison Dunning
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 6.150

5.  Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease.

Authors:  Kirk E Lohmueller; Celeste L Pearce; Malcolm Pike; Eric S Lander; Joel N Hirschhorn
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2003-01-13       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 6.  Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium.

Authors:  N J Risch
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  Discovering genotypes underlying human phenotypes: past successes for mendelian disease, future approaches for complex disease.

Authors:  David Botstein; Neil Risch
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 8.  Reporting, appraising, and integrating data on genotype prevalence and gene-disease associations.

Authors:  Julian Little; Linda Bradley; Molly S Bray; Mindy Clyne; Janice Dorman; Darrell L Ellsworth; James Hanson; Muin Khoury; Joseph Lau; Thomas R O'Brien; Nat Rothman; Donna Stroup; Emanuela Taioli; Duncan Thomas; Harri Vainio; Sholom Wacholder; Clarice Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 9.  A comprehensive review of genetic association studies.

Authors:  Joel N Hirschhorn; Kirk Lohmueller; Edward Byrne; Kurt Hirschhorn
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Candidate genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the study of human disease.

Authors:  S Chanock
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.434

View more
  635 in total

1.  Replication in genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Peter Kraft; Eleftheria Zeggini; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 2.901

2.  Association of multi-drug resistance gene polymorphisms with pancreatic cancer outcome.

Authors:  Motofumi Tanaka; Taro Okazaki; Hideo Suzuki; James L Abbruzzese; Donghui Li
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Gerontologic biostatistics: the statistical challenges of clinical research with older study participants.

Authors:  Peter H Van Ness; Peter A Charpentier; Edward H Ip; Xiaoyan Leng; Terrence E Murphy; Janet A Tooze; Heather G Allore
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 5.562

4.  The future of association studies: gene-based analysis and replication.

Authors:  Benjamin M Neale; Pak C Sham
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2004-07-22       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Genetic variants in the genes encoding rho GTPases and related regulators predict cutaneous melanoma-specific survival.

Authors:  Shun Liu; Yanru Wang; William Xue; Hongliang Liu; Yinghui Xu; Qiong Shi; Wenting Wu; Dakai Zhu; Christopher I Amos; Shenying Fang; Jeffrey E Lee; Terry Hyslop; Yi Li; Jiali Han; Qingyi Wei
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Genome-wide interrogation of germline genetic variation associated with treatment response in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Authors:  Jun J Yang; Cheng Cheng; Wenjian Yang; Deqing Pei; Xueyuan Cao; Yiping Fan; Stanley B Pounds; Geoffrey Neale; Lisa R Treviño; Deborah French; Dario Campana; James R Downing; William E Evans; Ching-Hon Pui; Meenakshi Devidas; W P Bowman; Bruce M Camitta; Cheryl L Willman; Stella M Davies; Michael J Borowitz; William L Carroll; Stephen P Hunger; Mary V Relling
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Systematic evaluation of genetic variation at the androgen receptor locus and risk of prostate cancer in a multiethnic cohort study.

Authors:  Matthew L Freedman; Celeste L Pearce; Kathryn L Penney; Joel N Hirschhorn; Laurence N Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; David Altshuler
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2004-11-29       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Significant associations of mismatch repair gene polymorphisms with clinical outcome of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Xiaoqun Dong; Li Jiao; Yanan Li; Douglas B Evans; Huamin Wang; Kenneth R Hess; James L Abbruzzese; Donghui Li
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Single-nucleotide polymorphisms of stemness genes predicted to regulate RNA splicing, microRNA and oncogenic signaling are associated with prostate cancer survival.

Authors:  Jennifer A Freedman; Yanru Wang; Xuechan Li; Hongliang Liu; Patricia G Moorman; Daniel J George; Norman H Lee; Terry Hyslop; Qingyi Wei; Steven R Patierno
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 4.944

10.  The ATM missense mutation p.Ser49Cys (c.146C>G) and the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Denise L Stredrick; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Marbin A Pineda; Parveen Bhatti; Bruce H Alexander; Michele M Doody; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Louise A Brinton; Stephen J Chanock; Jeffery P Struewing; Alice J Sigurdson
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.878

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.