Literature DB >> 18676414

Size matters: just how big is BIG?: Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology.

Paul R Burton1, Anna L Hansell, Isabel Fortier, Teri A Manolio, Muin J Khoury, Julian Little, Paul Elliott.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18676414      PMCID: PMC2639365          DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyn147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  72 in total

Review 1.  How many diseases does it take to map a gene with SNPs?

Authors:  K M Weiss; J D Terwilliger
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 2.  Confounding, ascertainment bias, and the blind quest for a genetic 'fountain of youth'.

Authors:  Joseph D Terwilliger; Kenneth M Weiss
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.709

3.  Commentary: development of Mendelian randomization: from hypothesis test to 'Mendelian deconfounding'.

Authors:  Martin D Tobin; Cosetta Minelli; Paul R Burton; John R Thompson
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 4.  Gene-environment interactions in human diseases.

Authors:  David J Hunter
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 5.  A gene-centric approach to genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Eric Jorgenson; John S Witte
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  Complement factor H variant increases the risk of age-related macular degeneration.

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

7.  Genome-wide association study identifies a second prostate cancer susceptibility variant at 8q24.

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

8.  Genome-wide association analysis identifies loci for type 2 diabetes and triglyceride levels.

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

9.  A common genetic risk factor for colorectal and prostate cancer.

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

10.  Genetic variants and common diseases--better late than never.

Authors:  Stephen O'Rahilly; Nicholas J Wareham
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  101 in total

1.  Stem cell banking: between traceability and identifiability.

Authors:  Bartha M Knoppers; Rosario Isasi
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 11.117

2.  Current standards for the storage of human samples in biobanks.

Authors:  Tim Peakman; Paul Elliott
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 11.117

Review 3.  The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research.

Authors:  Jane Kaye
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  Invited commentary: GE-Whiz! Ratcheting gene-environment studies up to the whole genome and the whole exposome.

Authors:  Duncan C Thomas; Juan Pablo Lewinger; Cassandra E Murcray; W James Gauderman
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Using PhenX measures to identify opportunities for cross-study analysis.

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

6.  An analytical approach to characterize morbidity profile dissimilarity between distinct cohorts using electronic medical records.

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

Review 7.  Integrating biobanks: addressing the practical and ethical issues to deliver a valuable tool for cancer research.

Authors:  R William G Watson; Elaine W Kay; David Smith
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Consent to 'personal' genomics and privacy. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests and population genome research challenge traditional notions of privacy and consent.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 8.807

9.  Anonymization of longitudinal electronic medical records.

Authors:  Acar Tamersoy; Grigorios Loukides; Mehmet Ercan Nergiz; Yucel Saygin; Bradley Malin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed       Date:  2012-01-27

10.  Lack of associations of ten candidate coronary heart disease risk genetic variants and subclinical atherosclerosis in four US populations: the Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) study.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.