2015
DOI: 10.1002/gepi.21934
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Small Sample Kernel Association Tests for Human Genetic and Microbiome Association Studies

Abstract: Kernel machine based association tests (KAT) have been increasingly used in testing the association between an outcome and a set of biological measurements due to its power to combine multiple weak signals of complex relationship with the outcome through the specification of a relevant kernel. Human genetic and microbiome association studies are two important applications of KAT. However, the classic KAT framework relies on large-sample theory, and conservativeness has been observed for small-sample studies, e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
90
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
90
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The asymptotic kernel association tests derived for large‐sample genetic data may be conservative for microbiome data, leading to loss of power to detect associations. Such a small‐sample conservativeness problem has been well observed in univariate outcome kernel association tests (Chen, Chen, Zhao, Wu, & Schaid, ; Lee et al., ), which is also expected for multivariate outcomes situations. We thus implement a novel small‐sample adjustment in our MMiRKAT to correct for the potential small‐sample conservativeness issue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The asymptotic kernel association tests derived for large‐sample genetic data may be conservative for microbiome data, leading to loss of power to detect associations. Such a small‐sample conservativeness problem has been well observed in univariate outcome kernel association tests (Chen, Chen, Zhao, Wu, & Schaid, ; Lee et al., ), which is also expected for multivariate outcomes situations. We thus implement a novel small‐sample adjustment in our MMiRKAT to correct for the potential small‐sample conservativeness issue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The P ‐values calculated in such a way works sufficiently well for large sample size (Wu et al., ; Wu & Pankow, ). However, when the sample size is small or modest (e.g., less than 1,000), current kernel‐based association tests developed for large sample size can be very conservative, leading to potential power loss in detecting meaningful associations, especially for binary outcomes (Lee et al., ) and microbiome association studies (Chen et al., ). Given small‐sample conservatism, a feasible approach is the permutation test.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This conservativeness is caused by not accounting for the variability in the estimated σε2. To overcome this, J. Chen, Chen, Zhao, Wu, and Schaid () proposed an exact P ‐value that directly incorporates the estimate uncertainty of σˆε2 by recognizing that Q is a ratio of two quadratic statistics. Specifically, the exact P ‐value was calculated based on the adjusted score statistic Qa=(yyˆfalse)false′K(yyˆ)(yyˆfalse)false′(yyˆ).Using the same trick above, where false(ytrueyˆfalse)=trueεˆ=σεP01/2ε, and substituting into Qa, the P ‐value can be determined by P(Qa>Qa,normalonormalbnormals)=Ptrue(εP01/2KP01/2εεP01/2P01/2ε>Qa,normalonormalbnormalstrue)=Ptrue(εP01/2KP01/2ε>Qa,normalonormalbnormals[εP0ε]true)=Ptrue(ε[P…”
Section: Hypothesis Testing and P‐valuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Small‐sample moment corrections for variance and kurtosis for binomial for case–control data have been developed to improve kernel methods (Lee, Emond, et al, ). Although such correction improves the accuracy at small α levels, anticonservativeness has been observed at traditional α levels (e.g., ɑ = 0.05, 0.1; J. Chen et al, ).…”
Section: Hypothesis Testing and P‐valuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chen, Chen, Zhao, Wu, & Schaid, 2016;Zhan et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2015). Chen, Chen, Zhao, Wu, & Schaid, 2016;Zhan et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%