| Literature DB >> 16451643 |
Betty Q Doan1, Constantine E Frangakis, Yin Y Shugart, Joan E Bailey-Wilson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Covariate-based linkage analyses using a conditional logistic model as implemented in LODPAL can increase the power to detect linkage by minimizing disease heterogeneity. However, each additional covariate analyzed will increase the degrees of freedom for the linkage test, and therefore can also increase the type I error rate. Use of a propensity score (PS) has been shown to improve consistently the statistical power to detect linkage in simulation studies. Defined as the conditional probability of being affected given the observed covariate data, the PS collapses multiple covariates into a single variable. This study evaluates the performance of the PS to detect linkage evidence in a genome-wide linkage analysis of microsatellite marker data from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. Analytical methods included nonparametric linkage analysis without covariates, with one covariate at a time including multiple PS definitions, and with multiple covariates simultaneously that corresponded to the PS definitions. Several definitions of the PS were calculated, each with increasing number of covariates up to a maximum of five. To account for the potential inflation in the type I error rates, permutation based p-values were calculated.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2005 PMID: 16451643 PMCID: PMC1866752 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-6-S1-S33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Regression coefficients as odds ratio (SE) for the five propensity scores used
| No. cov. | Propensity score definitions (included covariates) | Regression coefficents as OR (SE) | ||||
| age_int | sex | smoker | max drinks | ttth1 | ||
| 1 | PS1 (age_int, sex) | |||||
| 1 | PS2 (age_int, sex, ttth1) | 0.871 (0.150) | ||||
| 1 | PS3 (age_int, sex, smoker) | |||||
| 1 | PS4 (age_int, sex, smoker, maxdrinks) | 0.973 (0.010) | 1.696 (0.622) | |||
| 1 | PS5 (age_int, sex, smoker, maxdrinks, ttth1) | 0.969 (0.019) | 2.039 (1.139) | 2.320 (1.216) | 1.026 (0.362) | |
aThe significant coefficients (p-value < 0.05) are in bold.
Overall p-values and the number of significant microsatellite markers by analysis method
| Method No. | No. cov. | Covariates analyzed | Overall | No. markers with | |
| <0.05 | <0.01 | ||||
| Single covariate | |||||
| 1 | 0 | none | 0.001 | 16 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | age_int | 0.002 | 18 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | sex | 0.838 | 9 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 | maxdrinks | 0.002 | 27 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 | smoker | 0.008 | 19 | 2 |
| 6 | 1 | ttth1 | 0.055 | 10 | 3 |
| Propensity scoresa | |||||
| 7 | 1 | PS1 (age_int, sex) | 0.002 | 22 | 3 |
| 8 | 1 | PS2 (age_int, sex, ttth1) | 0.046 | 12 | 0 |
| 9 | 1 | PS3 (age_int, sex, smoker) | <0.001 | 27 | 4 |
| 10 | 1 | PS4 (age_int, sex, smoker, maxdrinks) | 0.008 | 21 | 3 |
| 11 | 1 | PS5 (age_int, sex, smoker, maxdrinks, ttth1) | 0.329 | 14 | 4 |
| Multiple covariates | |||||
| 12 | 2 | age_int, sex | 0.025 | 19 | 4 |
| 13 | 3 | age_int, sex, ttth1 | 1.000 | 16 | 2 |
| 14 | 3 | age_int, sex, smoker | 0.003 | 18 | 4 |
| 15 | 4 | age_int, sex, smoker, maxdrinks | 0.045 | 16 | 4 |
| 16 | 5 | age_int, sex, smoker, maxdrinks, ttth1 | 1.000 | 9 | 1 |
Methods were identified according to the set of covariates analyzed.
a PS were calculated from the covariates listed, and the corresponding regression coefficients are listed as odds ratios (OR) with the standard errors (SE) in Table 2.
bThe overall p-value for the analysis method was calculated as the probability of obtaining the observed sum of the LOD scores across the genome in the 1,000 permuted replicates. Significance thresholds of <0.05 and <0.01 were used.
Figure 1Markers with significant linkage evidence according to the method of analysis. The yellow bars represent markers significant at the 0.05 level, and the red bars represent markers significant at the 0.01 level. The marker numbers correspond to 315 microsatellite markers throughout the genome, and are separated into chromosomes 1 through 22. The method number corresponds to the set of covariates analyzed as listed in Table 1, and is separated by the type of method used. From bottom to top, the methods are no covariates, single covariates, propensity scores, and multiple covariates.