Genetic association studies in Alzheimer's disease research: Challenges and opportunities

Steven D. Edland, Susan L Slager, Matthew Farrer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Genetic association studies have identified important risk factors for Alzheimer's disease and other diseases. However, the ease with which these methods can be applied and the shear number of polymorphisms in the human genome has led to a well-characterized multiple comparison problem - given the number of genetic variants being tested, it is likely that many of the positive findings reported in the literature to date will prove to be false positive findings explained simply by random fluctuation in data and type I error. The disparity of findings in initial positive reports versus subsequent negative replication studies observed in the Alzheimer's disease literature underscores this problem. The problem of a high false positive rate can be addressed in part by using statistical correction for multiple comparisons in larger and statistically more powerful samples and in meta-analyses of smaller samples. National initiatives are now being considered to address this problem by encouraging sharing of genetic material. Of equal concern in planning future initiatives are methodological issues that are the domain of the epidemiologist. In fact, it is possible that disparate findings across case-control studies reported to date may be explained in part by problems in the design, analysis and interpretation of these studies. The involvement of epidemiologists may improve the situation in this regard. For example, population stratification bias, control selection bias and prevalent case bias can be minimized by careful study design and by appropriate statistical analysis. Regarding interpretation of case-control studies, a more careful consideration of the strength of evidence for a given genetic variant may help to temper enthusiasm for, or appropriately qualify, positive findings. Epidemiologists have well-developed causal criteria for this purpose. This paper reviews the current state of case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease from the epidemiological perspective. The problem of multiple comparisons and a high false positive rate is reviewed. The potential for bias in case-control studies of Alzheimer's disease is reviewed by way of example. Future initiatives to promote case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease can only benefit from increased awareness the tools of epidemiology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)169-178
Number of pages10
JournalStatistics in Medicine
Volume23
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 30 2004

Fingerprint

Genetic Association
Alzheimer's Disease
Genetic Association Studies
Case-control Study
Case-Control Studies
Alzheimer Disease
Multiple Comparisons
False Positive
Research
Selection Bias
Human Genome
Type I error
Epidemiology
Risk Factors
Meta-Analysis
Polymorphism
Stratification
Small Sample
Replication
Statistical Analysis

Keywords

  • Alzheimer's disease
  • Case-control study
  • Multiple comparisons
  • Selection bias
  • Stratification bias
  • Type I error

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Genetic association studies in Alzheimer's disease research : Challenges and opportunities. / Edland, Steven D.; Slager, Susan L; Farrer, Matthew.

In: Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 2, 30.01.2004, p. 169-178.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d575ed9e860f4ebf8ee2dcea7b15b832,
title = "Genetic association studies in Alzheimer's disease research: Challenges and opportunities",
abstract = "Genetic association studies have identified important risk factors for Alzheimer's disease and other diseases. However, the ease with which these methods can be applied and the shear number of polymorphisms in the human genome has led to a well-characterized multiple comparison problem - given the number of genetic variants being tested, it is likely that many of the positive findings reported in the literature to date will prove to be false positive findings explained simply by random fluctuation in data and type I error. The disparity of findings in initial positive reports versus subsequent negative replication studies observed in the Alzheimer's disease literature underscores this problem. The problem of a high false positive rate can be addressed in part by using statistical correction for multiple comparisons in larger and statistically more powerful samples and in meta-analyses of smaller samples. National initiatives are now being considered to address this problem by encouraging sharing of genetic material. Of equal concern in planning future initiatives are methodological issues that are the domain of the epidemiologist. In fact, it is possible that disparate findings across case-control studies reported to date may be explained in part by problems in the design, analysis and interpretation of these studies. The involvement of epidemiologists may improve the situation in this regard. For example, population stratification bias, control selection bias and prevalent case bias can be minimized by careful study design and by appropriate statistical analysis. Regarding interpretation of case-control studies, a more careful consideration of the strength of evidence for a given genetic variant may help to temper enthusiasm for, or appropriately qualify, positive findings. Epidemiologists have well-developed causal criteria for this purpose. This paper reviews the current state of case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease from the epidemiological perspective. The problem of multiple comparisons and a high false positive rate is reviewed. The potential for bias in case-control studies of Alzheimer's disease is reviewed by way of example. Future initiatives to promote case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease can only benefit from increased awareness the tools of epidemiology.",
keywords = "Alzheimer's disease, Case-control study, Multiple comparisons, Selection bias, Stratification bias, Type I error",
author = "Edland, {Steven D.} and Slager, {Susan L} and Matthew Farrer",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1002/sim.1706",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "169--178",
journal = "Statistics in Medicine",
issn = "0277-6715",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Genetic association studies in Alzheimer's disease research

T2 - Challenges and opportunities

AU - Edland, Steven D.

AU - Slager, Susan L

AU - Farrer, Matthew

PY - 2004/1/30

Y1 - 2004/1/30

N2 - Genetic association studies have identified important risk factors for Alzheimer's disease and other diseases. However, the ease with which these methods can be applied and the shear number of polymorphisms in the human genome has led to a well-characterized multiple comparison problem - given the number of genetic variants being tested, it is likely that many of the positive findings reported in the literature to date will prove to be false positive findings explained simply by random fluctuation in data and type I error. The disparity of findings in initial positive reports versus subsequent negative replication studies observed in the Alzheimer's disease literature underscores this problem. The problem of a high false positive rate can be addressed in part by using statistical correction for multiple comparisons in larger and statistically more powerful samples and in meta-analyses of smaller samples. National initiatives are now being considered to address this problem by encouraging sharing of genetic material. Of equal concern in planning future initiatives are methodological issues that are the domain of the epidemiologist. In fact, it is possible that disparate findings across case-control studies reported to date may be explained in part by problems in the design, analysis and interpretation of these studies. The involvement of epidemiologists may improve the situation in this regard. For example, population stratification bias, control selection bias and prevalent case bias can be minimized by careful study design and by appropriate statistical analysis. Regarding interpretation of case-control studies, a more careful consideration of the strength of evidence for a given genetic variant may help to temper enthusiasm for, or appropriately qualify, positive findings. Epidemiologists have well-developed causal criteria for this purpose. This paper reviews the current state of case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease from the epidemiological perspective. The problem of multiple comparisons and a high false positive rate is reviewed. The potential for bias in case-control studies of Alzheimer's disease is reviewed by way of example. Future initiatives to promote case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease can only benefit from increased awareness the tools of epidemiology.

AB - Genetic association studies have identified important risk factors for Alzheimer's disease and other diseases. However, the ease with which these methods can be applied and the shear number of polymorphisms in the human genome has led to a well-characterized multiple comparison problem - given the number of genetic variants being tested, it is likely that many of the positive findings reported in the literature to date will prove to be false positive findings explained simply by random fluctuation in data and type I error. The disparity of findings in initial positive reports versus subsequent negative replication studies observed in the Alzheimer's disease literature underscores this problem. The problem of a high false positive rate can be addressed in part by using statistical correction for multiple comparisons in larger and statistically more powerful samples and in meta-analyses of smaller samples. National initiatives are now being considered to address this problem by encouraging sharing of genetic material. Of equal concern in planning future initiatives are methodological issues that are the domain of the epidemiologist. In fact, it is possible that disparate findings across case-control studies reported to date may be explained in part by problems in the design, analysis and interpretation of these studies. The involvement of epidemiologists may improve the situation in this regard. For example, population stratification bias, control selection bias and prevalent case bias can be minimized by careful study design and by appropriate statistical analysis. Regarding interpretation of case-control studies, a more careful consideration of the strength of evidence for a given genetic variant may help to temper enthusiasm for, or appropriately qualify, positive findings. Epidemiologists have well-developed causal criteria for this purpose. This paper reviews the current state of case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease from the epidemiological perspective. The problem of multiple comparisons and a high false positive rate is reviewed. The potential for bias in case-control studies of Alzheimer's disease is reviewed by way of example. Future initiatives to promote case-control studies of genetic variants in Alzheimer's disease can only benefit from increased awareness the tools of epidemiology.

KW - Alzheimer's disease

KW - Case-control study

KW - Multiple comparisons

KW - Selection bias

KW - Stratification bias

KW - Type I error

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0346463202&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0346463202&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/sim.1706

DO - 10.1002/sim.1706

M3 - Article

C2 - 14716719

AN - SCOPUS:0346463202

VL - 23

SP - 169

EP - 178

JO - Statistics in Medicine

JF - Statistics in Medicine

SN - 0277-6715

IS - 2

ER -