scholarly journals Inflated type I error rates when using aggregation methods to analyze rare variants in the 1000 Genomes Project exon sequencing data in unrelated individuals: summary results from Group 7 at Genetic Analysis Workshop 17

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. S56-S60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Tintle ◽  
Hugues Aschard ◽  
Inchi Hu ◽  
Nora Nock ◽  
Haitian Wang ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 3941-3950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng Wei ◽  
Ying Cao ◽  
Yiwei Zhang ◽  
Zhiyuan Xu ◽  
Il-Youp Kwak ◽  
...  

Abstract With the advance of sequencing technologies, it has become a routine practice to test for association between a quantitative trait and a set of rare variants (RVs). While a number of RV association tests have been proposed, there is a dearth of studies on the robustness of RV association testing for nonnormal distributed traits, e.g., due to skewness, which is ubiquitous in cohort studies. By extensive simulations, we demonstrate that commonly used RV tests, including sequence kernel association test (SKAT) and optimal unified SKAT (SKAT-O), are not robust to heavy-tailed or right-skewed trait distributions with inflated type I error rates; in contrast, the adaptive sum of powered score (aSPU) test is much more robust. Here we further propose a robust version of the aSPU test, called aSPUr. We conduct extensive simulations to evaluate the power of the tests, finding that for a larger number of RVs, aSPU is often more powerful than SKAT and SKAT-O, owing to its high data-adaptivity. We also compare different tests by conducting association analysis of triglyceride levels using the NHLBI ESP whole-exome sequencing data. The QQ plots for SKAT and SKAT-O were severely inflated (λ = 1.89 and 1.78, respectively), while those for aSPU and aSPUr behaved normally. Due to its relatively high robustness to outliers and high power of the aSPU test, we recommend its use complementary to SKAT and SKAT-O. If there is evidence of inflated type I error rate from the aSPU test, we would recommend the use of the more robust, but less powerful, aSPUr test.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Miller

Contrary to the warning of Miller (1988), Rousselet and Wilcox (2020) argued that it is better to summarize each participant’s single-trial reaction times (RTs) in a given condition with the median than with the mean when comparing the central tendencies of RT distributions across experimental conditions. They acknowledged that median RTs can produce inflated Type I error rates when conditions differ in the number of trials tested, consistent with Miller’s warning, but they showed that the bias responsible for this error rate inflation could be eliminated with a bootstrap bias correction technique. The present simulations extend their analysis by examining the power of bias-corrected medians to detect true experimental effects and by comparing this power with the power of analyses using means and regular medians. Unfortunately, although bias-corrected medians solve the problem of inflated Type I error rates, their power is lower than that of means or regular medians in many realistic situations. In addition, even when conditions do not differ in the number of trials tested, the power of tests (e.g., t-tests) is generally lower using medians rather than means as the summary measures. Thus, the present simulations demonstrate that summary means will often provide the most powerful test for differences between conditions, and they show what aspects of the RT distributions determine the size of the power advantage for means.


2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 366-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin L. Young ◽  
Janice Weinberg ◽  
Verónica Vieira ◽  
Al Ozonoff ◽  
Thomas F. Webster

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan J. Morse ◽  
George A. Johanson ◽  
Rodger W. Griffeth

Recent simulation research has demonstrated that using simple raw score to operationalize a latent construct can result in inflated Type I error rates for the interaction term of a moderated statistical model when the interaction (or lack thereof) is proposed at the latent variable level. Rescaling the scores using an appropriate item response theory (IRT) model can mitigate this effect under similar conditions. However, this work has thus far been limited to dichotomous data. The purpose of this study was to extend this investigation to multicategory (polytomous) data using the graded response model (GRM). Consistent with previous studies, inflated Type I error rates were observed under some conditions when polytomous number-correct scores were used, and were mitigated when the data were rescaled with the GRM. These results support the proposition that IRT-derived scores are more robust to spurious interaction effects in moderated statistical models than simple raw scores under certain conditions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhou ◽  
Wenjian Bi ◽  
Zhangchen Zhao ◽  
Kushal K. Dey ◽  
Karthik A. Jagadeesh ◽  
...  

UK Biobank has released the whole-exome sequencing (WES) data for 200,000 participants, but the best practices remain unclear for rare variant tests, and an existing approach, SAIGE-GENE, can have inflated type I error rates with high computation cost. Here, we propose SAIGE-GENE+ with greatly improved type I error control and computational efficiency compared to SAIGE-GENE. In the analysis of UKBB WES data of 30 quantitative and 141 binary traits, SAIGE-GENE+ identified 551 gene-phenotype associations. In addition, we showed that incorporating multiple MAF cutoffs and functional annotations can help identify novel gene-phenotype associations and SAIGE-GENE+ can facilitate this.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Miller

The present simulations examine the power of bias-corrected medians to detect true experimental effects on reaction time and compare this power with the power of analyses using means and regular medians. Unfortunately, although bias-corrected medians solve the problem of inflated Type I error rates, their power is lower than that of means or regular medians in many realistic situations. The simulations demonstrate that means will often provide the most powerful test for condition differences, and they show what aspects of the RT distributions should be checked to determine whether means or medians will provide greater power.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document