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.

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.