Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

  • 제24권6호
  • /
  • Pages.663-671
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 2287-7843(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2383-4757(eISSN)
한국통계학회 (The Korean Statistical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Genetic association tests when a nuisance parameter is not identifiable under no association

  • Kim, Wonkuk (Department of Applied Statistics, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Kim, Yeong-Hwa (Department of Applied Statistics, Chung-Ang University)
  • 투고 : 2017.08.22
  • 심사 : 2017.10.03
  • 발행 : 2017.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Some genetic association tests include an unidentifiable nuisance parameter under the null hypothesis of no association. When the mode of inheritance (MOI) is not specified in a case-control design, the Cochran-Armitage (CA) trend test contains an unidentifiable nuisance parameter. The transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) in a family-based association study that includes the unaffected also contains an unidentifiable nuisance parameter. The hypothesis tests that include an unidentifiable nuisance parameter are typically performed by taking a supremum of the CA tests or TDT over reasonable values of the parameter. The p-values of the supremum test statistics cannot be obtained by a normal or chi-square distribution. A common method is to use a Davies's upper bound of the p-value instead of an exact asymptotic p-value. In this paper, we provide a unified sine-cosine process expression of the CA trend test that does not specify the MOI and the TDT that includes the unaffected. We also present a closed form expression of the exact asymptotic formulas to calculate the p-values of the supremum tests when the score function can be written as a linear form in an unidentifiable parameter. We illustrate how to use the derived formulas using a pharmacogenetics case-control dataset and an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder family-based example.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Armitage P (1955). Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies, Biometrics, 11, 375-386. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001775
  2. Choi ML and Lee J (2014). GLR charts for simultaneously monitoring a sustained shift and a linear drift in the process mean, Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods, 21, 69-80. https://doi.org/10.5351/CSAM.2014.21.1.069
  3. Cochran WG (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common ${\chi}^2$ tests, Biometrics, 10, 417-451. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001616
  4. Davies RB (1977). Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative, Biometrika, 64, 247-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2335690
  5. Davies RB (1987). Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative, Biometrika, 74, 33-43.
  6. Davies RB (2002). Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative: Linear model case, Biometrika, 89, 484-489. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/89.2.484
  7. Delmas C (2003). Projections on spherical cones, maximum of Gaussian fields and Rice's method, Statistics & Probability Letters, 64, 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7152(03)00170-6
  8. Faraone SV, Sergent J, Gillberg C, and Biederman J (2003). The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: is it an American condition? World Psychiatry, 2, 104-113.
  9. Kim MK, Moore JH, Kim JK, et al. (2011). Evidence for epistatic interactions in antiepileptic drug resistance, Journal of Human Genetics, 56, 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1038/jhg.2010.151
  10. Kim W (2015). Transmission disequilibrium tests based on read counts for low-coverage next-generation sequence data, Human Heredity, 80, 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1159/000434645
  11. Kim W, Londono D, Zhou L, et al. (2012). Single-variant and multi-variant trend tests for genetic association with next-generation sequencing that are robust to sequencing error, Human Heredity, 74, 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1159/000346824
  12. Lange C and Laird NM (2002). Power calculations for a general class of family-based association tests: dichotomous traits, The American Journal of Human Genetics, 71, 575-584. https://doi.org/10.1086/342406
  13. Lee Y and Park JS (2017). Model selection algorithm in Gaussian process regression for computer experiments, Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods, 24, 383-396. https://doi.org/10.5351/CSAM.2017.24.4.383
  14. Lunetta KL, Faraone SV, Biederman J, and Laird NM (2000). Family-based tests of association and linkage that use unaffected sibs, covariates, and interactions. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 605-614. https://doi.org/10.1086/302782
  15. Rice SO (1944). Mathematical analysis of random noise, Bell Labs Technical Journal, 23, 282-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1944.tb00874.x
  16. Rice SO (1945). Mathematical analysis of random noise, The Bell System Technical Journal, 24, 46-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1945.tb00453.x
  17. Spielman RS, McGinnis RE, and Ewens WJ (1993). Transmission test for linkage disequilibrium: the insulin gene region and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), The American Journal of Human Genetics, 52, 506-516.