AIM: To evaluate the power to detect associations between SNPs and time-to-event outcomes across a range of pharmacogenomic study designs while comparing alternative regression approaches. MATERIALS & METHODS: Simulations were conducted to compare Cox proportional hazards modeling accounting for censoring and logistic regression modeling of a dichotomized outcome at the end of the study. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model was demonstrated to be more powerful than the logistic regression analysis. The difference in power between the approaches was highly dependent on the rate of censoring. CONCLUSION: Initial evaluation of single-nucleotide polymorphism association signals using computationally efficient software with dichotomized outcomes provides an effective screening tool for some design scenarios, and thus has important implications for the development of analytical protocols in pharmacogenomic studies.
AIM: To evaluate the power to detect associations between SNPs and time-to-event outcomes across a range of pharmacogenomic study designs while comparing alternative regression approaches. MATERIALS & METHODS: Simulations were conducted to compare Cox proportional hazards modeling accounting for censoring and logistic regression modeling of a dichotomized outcome at the end of the study. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model was demonstrated to be more powerful than the logistic regression analysis. The difference in power between the approaches was highly dependent on the rate of censoring. CONCLUSION: Initial evaluation of single-nucleotide polymorphism association signals using computationally efficient software with dichotomized outcomes provides an effective screening tool for some design scenarios, and thus has important implications for the development of analytical protocols in pharmacogenomic studies.
Authors: Shaun Purcell; Benjamin Neale; Kathe Todd-Brown; Lori Thomas; Manuel A R Ferreira; David Bender; Julian Maller; Pamela Sklar; Paul I W de Bakker; Mark J Daly; Pak C Sham Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Guy Leschziner; Andrea L Jorgensen; Toby Andrew; Munir Pirmohamed; Paula R Williamson; Anthony G Marson; Alison J Coffey; Claire Middleditch; Jane Rogers; David R Bentley; David W Chadwick; David J Balding; Michael R Johnson Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: T-K Clarke; R C Crist; A Ang; L M Ambrose-Lanci; F W Lohoff; A J Saxon; W Ling; M P Hillhouse; R D Bruce; G Woody; W H Berrettini Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Y Ji; J M Biernacka; S Hebbring; Y Chai; G D Jenkins; A Batzler; K A Snyder; M S Drews; Z Desta; D Flockhart; T Mushiroda; M Kubo; Y Nakamura; N Kamatani; D Schaid; R M Weinshilboum; D A Mrazek Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Francis B Annor; Rana A Bayakly; Reynolds A Morrison; Michael J Bryan; Leah K Gilbert; Asha Z Ivey-Stephenson; Kristin M Holland; Thomas R Simon Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Sven E Ojavee; Athanasios Kousathanas; Daniel Trejo Banos; Etienne J Orliac; Marion Patxot; Kristi Läll; Reedik Mägi; Krista Fischer; Zoltan Kutalik; Matthew R Robinson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 14.919