Power and Robustness of Linkage Tests for Quantitative Traits in General Pedigrees

There are numerous statistical methods for quantitative trait linkage analysis in human studies. An ideal such method would have high power to detect genetic loci contributing to the trait, would be robust to non-normality in the phenotype distribution, would be appropriate for general pedigrees, would allow the incorporation of environmental covariates, and would be appropriate in the presence of selective sampling. We recently described a general framework for quantitative trait linkage analysis, based on generalized estimating equations, for which many current methods are special cases. This procedure is appropriate for general pedigrees and easily accommodates environmental covariates. In this paper, we use computer simulations to investigate the power robustness of a variety of linkage test statistics built upon our general framework. We also propose two novel test statistics that take account of higher moments of the phenotype distribution, in order to accommodate non-normality. These new linkage tests are shown to have high power and to be robust to non-normality. While we have not yet examined the performance of our procedures in the context of selective sampling via computer simulations, the proposed tests satisfy all of the other qualities of an ideal quantitative trait linkage analysis method.

ASSOCIATON TESTS THAT ACCOMMODATE GENOTYPING ERRORS

High-throughput SNP arrays provide estimates of genotypes for up to one million loci, often used in genome-wide association studies. While these estimates are typically very accurate, genotyping errors do occur, which can influence in particular the most extreme test statistics and p-values. Estimates for the genotype uncertainties are also available, although typically ignored. In this manuscript, we develop a framework to incorporate these genotype uncertainties in case-control studies for any genetic model. We verify that using the assumption of a “local alternative” in the score test is very reasonable for effect sizes typically seen in SNP association studies, and show that the power of the score test is simply a function of the correlation of the genotype probabilities with the true genotypes. We demonstrate that the power to detect a true association can be substantially increased for difficult to call genotypes, resulting in improved inference in association studies.

Tests for Comparing Mark-Specific Hazards and Cumulative Incidence Functions

It is of interest in some applications to determine whether there is a relationship between a hazard rate function (or a cumulative incidence function) and a mark variable which is only observed at uncensored failure times. We develop nonparametric tests for this problem when the mark variable is continuous. Tests are developed for the null hypothesis that the mark-specific hazard rate is independent of the mark versus ordered and two-sided alternatives expressed in terms of mark-specific hazard functions and mark-specific cumulative incidence functions. The test statistics are based on functionals of a bivariate test process equal to a weighted average of differences between a Nelson--Aalen-type estimator of the mark-specific cumulative hazard function and a nonparametric estimator of this function under the null hypothesis. The weight function in the test process can be chosen so that the test statistics are asymptotically distribution-free.Asymptotically correct critical values are obtained through a simple simulation procedure. The testing procedures are shown to perform well in numerical studies, and are illustrated with an AIDS clinical trial example. Specifically, the tests are used to assess if the instantaneous or absolute risk of treatment failure depends on the amount of accumulation of drug resistance mutations in a subject's HIV virus. This assessment helps guide development of anti-HIV therapies that surmount the problem of drug resistance.

A NOVEL AND SIMPLE RULE OF THUMB FOR MULTIPLICITY CONTROL IN EQUIVALENCE TESTING USING TWO ONE-SIDED TESTS

Equivalence testing is growing in use in scientific research outside of its traditional role in the drug approval process. Largely due to its ease of use and recommendation from the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance, the most common statistical method for testing (bio)equivalence is the two one-sided tests procedure (TOST). Like classical point-null hypothesis testing, TOST is subject to multiplicity concerns as more comparisons are made. In this manuscript, a condition that bounds the family-wise error rate (FWER) using TOST is given. This condition then leads to a simple solution for controlling the FWER. Specifically, we demonstrate that if all pairwise comparisons of k independent groups are being evaluated for equivalence, then simply scaling the nominal Type I error rate down by (k - 1) is sufficient to maintain the family-wise error rate at the desired value or less. The resulting rule is much less conservative than the equally simple Bonferroni correction. An example of equivalence testing in a non drug-development setting is given.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.