Dataset Information

Genetic risk models: Influence of model size on risk estimates and precision.

ABSTRACT: Disease risk estimation plays an important role in disease prevention. Many studies have found that the ability to predict risk improves as the number of risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the risk model increases. However, the width of the confidence interval of the risk estimate is often not considered in the evaluation of the risk model. Here, we explore how the risk and the confidence interval width change as more SNPs are added to the model in the order of decreasing effect size, using both simulated data and real data from studies of abdominal aortic aneurysms and age-related macular degeneration. Our results show that confidence interval width is positively correlated with model size and the majority of the bigger models have wider confidence interval widths than smaller models. Once the model size is bigger than a certain level, the risk does not shift markedly, as 100% of the risk estimates of the one-SNP-bigger models lie inside the confidence interval of the one-SNP-smaller models. We also created a confidence interval-augmented reclassification table. It shows that both more effective SNPs with larger odds ratios and less effective SNPs with smaller odds ratios contribute to the correct decision of whom to screen. The best screening strategy is selected and evaluated by the net benefit quantity and the reclassification rate. We suggest that individuals whose upper bound of their risk confidence interval is above the screening threshold, which corresponds to the population prevalence of the disease, should be screened.

SUBMITTER: Shan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5628612 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genetic risk models: Influence of model size on risk estimates and precision.

Shan Ying Y Tromp Gerard G Kuivaniemi Helena H Smelser Diane T DT Verma Shefali S SS Ritchie Marylyn D MD Elmore James R JR Carey David J DJ Conley Yvette P YP Gorin Michael B MB Weeks Daniel E DE

Genetic epidemiology 20170215 4

Disease risk estimation plays an important role in disease prevention. Many studies have found that the ability to predict risk improves as the number of risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the risk model increases. However, the width of the confidence interval of the risk estimate is often not considered in the evaluation of the risk model. Here, we explore how the risk and the confidence interval width change as more SNPs are added to the model in the order of decreasing effect size ...[more]

PMID: 28198095

Similar Datasets

Project description:In a companion paper Balbona et al. (Behav Genet, in press), we introduced a series of causal models that use polygenic scores from transmitted and nontransmitted alleles, the offspring trait, and parental traits to estimate the variation due to the environmental influences the parental trait has on the offspring trait (vertical transmission) as well as additive genetic effects. These models also estimate and account for the gene-gene and gene-environment covariation that arises from assortative mating and vertical transmission respectively. In the current study, we simulated polygenic scores and phenotypes of parents and offspring under genetic and vertical transmission scenarios, assuming two types of assortative mating. We instantiated the models from our companion paper in the OpenMx software, and compared the true values of parameters to maximum likelihood estimates from models fitted on the simulated data to quantify the bias and precision of estimates. We show that parameter estimates from these models are unbiased when assumptions are met, but as expected, they are biased to the degree that assumptions are unmet. Standard errors of the estimated variances due to vertical transmission and to genetic effects decrease with increasing sample sizes and with increasing [Formula: see text] values of the polygenic score. Even when the polygenic score explains a modest amount of trait variation ([Formula: see text]), standard errors of these standardized estimates are reasonable ([Formula: see text]) for [Formula: see text] trios, and can even be reasonable for smaller sample sizes (e.g., down to 4K) when the polygenic score is more predictive. These causal models offer a novel approach for understanding how parents influence their offspring, but their use requires polygenic scores on relevant traits that are modestly predictive (e.g., [Formula: see text] as well as datasets with genomic and phenotypic information on parents and offspring. The utility of polygenic scores for elucidating parental influences should thus serve as additional motivation for large genomic biobanks to perform GWAS's on traits that may be relevant to parenting and to oversample close relatives, particularly parents and offspring.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sources93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Data extractionSample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial.Data synthesisTrials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥ 1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials).ResultsTreatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00).ConclusionsTreatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.

Project description:BackgroundIn settings with social interactions, the phenotype of an individual is affected by the direct genetic effect (DGE) of the individual itself and by indirect genetic effects (IGE) of its group mates. In the presence of IGE, heritable variance and response to selection depend on size of the interaction group (group size), which can be modelled via a 'dilution' parameter (d) that measures the magnitude of IGE as a function of group size. However, little is known about the estimability of d and the precision of its estimate. Our aim was to investigate how precisely d can be estimated and what determines this precision.MethodsWe simulated data with different group sizes and estimated d using a mixed model that included IGE and d. Schemes included various average group sizes (4, 6, and 8), variation in group size (coefficient of variation (CV) ranging from 0.125 to 1.010), and three values of d (0, 0.5, and 1). A design in which individuals were randomly allocated to groups was used for all schemes and a design with two families per group was used for some schemes. Parameters were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Bias and precision of estimates were used to assess their statistical quality.ResultsThe dilution parameter of IGE can be estimated for simulated data with variation in group size. For all schemes, the length of confidence intervals ranged from 0.114 to 0.927 for d, from 0.149 to 0.198 for variance of DGE, from 0.011 to 0.086 for variance of IGE, and from 0.310 to 0.557 for genetic correlation between DGE and IGE. To estimate d, schemes with groups composed of two families performed slightly better than schemes with randomly composed groups.ConclusionsDilution of IGE was estimable, and in general its estimation was more precise when CV of group size was larger. All estimated parameters were unbiased. Estimation of dilution of IGE allows the contribution of direct and indirect variance components to heritable variance to be quantified in relation to group size and, thus, it could improve prediction of the expected response to selection in environments with group sizes that differ from the average size.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Matrix models are widely used to study the dynamics and demography of populations. An important but overlooked issue is how the number of individuals sampled influences estimates of the population growth rate (lambda) calculated with matrix models. Even unbiased estimates of vital rates do not ensure unbiased estimates of lambda-Jensen's Inequality implies that even when the estimates of the vital rates are accurate, small sample sizes lead to biased estimates of lambda due to increased sampling variance. We investigated if sampling variability and the distribution of sampling effort among size classes lead to biases in estimates of lambda. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using data from a long-term field study of plant demography, we simulated the effects of sampling variance by drawing vital rates and calculating lambda for increasingly larger populations drawn from a total population of 3842 plants. We then compared these estimates of lambda with those based on the entire population and calculated the resulting bias. Finally, we conducted a review of the literature to determine the sample sizes typically used when parameterizing matrix models used to study plant demography. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We found significant bias at small sample sizes when survival was low (survival = 0.5), and that sampling with a more-realistic inverse J-shaped population structure exacerbated this bias. However our simulations also demonstrate that these biases rapidly become negligible with increasing sample sizes or as survival increases. For many of the sample sizes used in demographic studies, matrix models are probably robust to the biases resulting from sampling variance of vital rates. However, this conclusion may depend on the structure of populations or the distribution of sampling effort in ways that are unexplored. We suggest more intensive sampling of populations when individual survival is low and greater sampling of stages with high elasticities.

Dataset Information

Genetic risk models: Influence of model size on risk estimates and precision.

Publications

Genetic risk models: Influence of model size on risk estimates and precision.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets