BACKGROUND: Despite earlier doubts, a string of recent successes indicates that if sample sizes are large enough, it is possible-both in theory and in practice-to identify and replicate genetic associations with common complex diseases. But human genome epidemiology is expensive and, from a strategic perspective, it is still unclear what 'large enough' really means. This question has critical implications for governments, funding agencies, bioscientists and the tax-paying public. Difficult strategic decisions with imposing price tags and important opportunity costs must be taken. METHODS: Conventional power calculations for case-control studies disregard many basic elements of analytic complexity-e.g. errors in clinical assessment, and the impact of unmeasured aetiological determinants-and can seriously underestimate true sample size requirements. This article describes, and applies, a rigorous simulation-based approach to power calculation that deals more comprehensively with analytic complexity and has been implemented on the web as ESPRESSO: (www.p3gobservatory.org/powercalculator.htm). RESULTS: Using this approach, the article explores the realistic power profile of stand-alone and nested case-control studies in a variety of settings and provides a robust quantitative foundation for determining the required sample size both of individual biobanks and of large disease-based consortia. Despite universal acknowledgment of the importance of large sample sizes, our results suggest that contemporary initiatives are still, at best, at the lower end of the range of desirable sample size. Insufficient power remains particularly problematic for studies exploring gene-gene or gene-environment interactions. Discussion Sample size calculation must be both accurate and realistic, and we must continue to strengthen national and international cooperation in the design, conduct, harmonization and integration of studies in human genome epidemiology.
BACKGROUND: Despite earlier doubts, a string of recent successes indicates that if sample sizes are large enough, it is possible-both in theory and in practice-to identify and replicate genetic associations with common complex diseases. But human genome epidemiology is expensive and, from a strategic perspective, it is still unclear what 'large enough' really means. This question has critical implications for governments, funding agencies, bioscientists and the tax-paying public. Difficult strategic decisions with imposing price tags and important opportunity costs must be taken. METHODS: Conventional power calculations for case-control studies disregard many basic elements of analytic complexity-e.g. errors in clinical assessment, and the impact of unmeasured aetiological determinants-and can seriously underestimate true sample size requirements. This article describes, and applies, a rigorous simulation-based approach to power calculation that deals more comprehensively with analytic complexity and has been implemented on the web as ESPRESSO: (www.p3gobservatory.org/powercalculator.htm). RESULTS: Using this approach, the article explores the realistic power profile of stand-alone and nested case-control studies in a variety of settings and provides a robust quantitative foundation for determining the required sample size both of individual biobanks and of large disease-based consortia. Despite universal acknowledgment of the importance of large sample sizes, our results suggest that contemporary initiatives are still, at best, at the lower end of the range of desirable sample size. Insufficient power remains particularly problematic for studies exploring gene-gene or gene-environment interactions. Discussion Sample size calculation must be both accurate and realistic, and we must continue to strengthen national and international cooperation in the design, conduct, harmonization and integration of studies in human genome epidemiology.
Authors: Jonathan L Haines; Michael A Hauser; Silke Schmidt; William K Scott; Lana M Olson; Paul Gallins; Kylee L Spencer; Shu Ying Kwan; Maher Noureddine; John R Gilbert; Nathalie Schnetz-Boutaud; Anita Agarwal; Eric A Postel; Margaret A Pericak-Vance Journal: Science Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Julius Gudmundsson; Patrick Sulem; Andrei Manolescu; Laufey T Amundadottir; Daniel Gudbjartsson; Agnar Helgason; Thorunn Rafnar; Jon T Bergthorsson; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Adam Baker; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Kristrun R Benediktsdottir; Margret Jakobsdottir; Jianfeng Xu; Thorarinn Blondal; Jelena Kostic; Jielin Sun; Shyamali Ghosh; Simon N Stacey; Magali Mouy; Jona Saemundsdottir; Valgerdur M Backman; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Alejandro Tres; Alan W Partin; Marjo T Albers-Akkers; Javier Godino-Ivan Marcos; Patrick C Walsh; Dorine W Swinkels; Sebastian Navarrete; Sarah D Isaacs; Katja K Aben; Theresa Graif; John Cashy; Manuel Ruiz-Echarri; Kathleen E Wiley; Brian K Suarez; J Alfred Witjes; Mike Frigge; Carole Ober; Eirikur Jonsson; Gudmundur V Einarsson; Jose I Mayordomo; Lambertus A Kiemeney; William B Isaacs; William J Catalona; Rosa B Barkardottir; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Augustine Kong; Kari Stefansson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Richa Saxena; Benjamin F Voight; Valeriya Lyssenko; Noël P Burtt; Paul I W de Bakker; Hong Chen; Jeffrey J Roix; Sekar Kathiresan; Joel N Hirschhorn; Mark J Daly; Thomas E Hughes; Leif Groop; David Altshuler; Peter Almgren; Jose C Florez; Joanne Meyer; Kristin Ardlie; Kristina Bengtsson Boström; Bo Isomaa; Guillaume Lettre; Ulf Lindblad; Helen N Lyon; Olle Melander; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Peter Nilsson; Marju Orho-Melander; Lennart Råstam; Elizabeth K Speliotes; Marja-Riitta Taskinen; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Candace Guiducci; Anna Berglund; Joyce Carlson; Lauren Gianniny; Rachel Hackett; Liselotte Hall; Johan Holmkvist; Esa Laurila; Marketa Sjögren; Maria Sterner; Aarti Surti; Margareta Svensson; Malin Svensson; Ryan Tewhey; Brendan Blumenstiel; Melissa Parkin; Matthew Defelice; Rachel Barry; Wendy Brodeur; Jody Camarata; Nancy Chia; Mary Fava; John Gibbons; Bob Handsaker; Claire Healy; Kieu Nguyen; Casey Gates; Carrie Sougnez; Diane Gage; Marcia Nizzari; Stacey B Gabriel; Gung-Wei Chirn; Qicheng Ma; Hemang Parikh; Delwood Richardson; Darrell Ricke; Shaun Purcell Journal: Science Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Christopher A Haiman; Loïc Le Marchand; Jennifer Yamamato; Daniel O Stram; Xin Sheng; Laurence N Kolonel; Anna H Wu; David Reich; Brian E Henderson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2007-07-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Huaqin Pan; Kimberly A Tryka; Daniel J Vreeman; Wayne Huggins; Michael J Phillips; Jayashri P Mehta; Jacqueline H Phillips; Clement J McDonald; Heather A Junkins; Erin M Ramos; Carol M Hamilton Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Jonathan S Schildcrout; Melissa A Basford; Jill M Pulley; Daniel R Masys; Dan M Roden; Deede Wang; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; David Carrell; Peggy Peissig; Abel Kho; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Lili Zhang; Petra Buzkova; Christina L Wassel; Mary J Roman; Kari E North; Dana C Crawford; Jonathan Boston; Kristin D Brown-Gentry; Shelley A Cole; Ewa Deelman; Robert Goodloe; Sarah Wilson; Gerardo Heiss; Nancy S Jenny; Neal W Jorgensen; Tara C Matise; Bob E McClellan; Alejandro Q Nato; Marylyn D Ritchie; Nora Franceschini; W H Linda Kao Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 5.162