IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stabio/v15y2023i2d10.1007_s12561-023-09369-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Designs and Estimation Methods Under Response-Dependent Two-Phase Sampling for Genetic Association Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Brady Ryan

    (Memorial University of Newfoundland
    University of Michigan)

  • Ananthika Nirmalkanna

    (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

  • Candemir Cigsar

    (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

  • Yildiz E. Yilmaz

    (Memorial University of Newfoundland)

Abstract

In many genetic association analyses, while the aim is to identify genetic variants associated with a given quantitative trait, budgetary constraints prevent genotyping all individuals in a cohort. Selection of individuals for genotyping according to their quantitative trait value can improve cost efficiency. We consider quantitative trait-dependent two-phase sampling designs. In the first phase, trait and inexpensive covariate values for all individuals in a cohort are obtained; in the second phase, genetic sequence data for a subset of individuals are obtained according to their trait values and possibly their inexpensive covariates. We consider the likelihood and pseudo-likelihood methods proposed to analyze response-biased samples, assess their performance under common, low-frequency, and rare variant analyses, compare their efficiencies and investigate efficient response-dependent sampling designs under each method. We also assess robustness of the estimation methods and sampling designs under misspecified models. The results show that extreme sampling is the most efficient design for common variant analysis, and that selecting a small sample from the middle stratum improves accuracy and precision in low-frequency and rare variant analyses. Likelihood methods under an extreme sampling design generally give the most accurate and precise estimates when the model is correctly specified. Both the estimated pseudo-likelihood and pseudo-conditional likelihood methods become more efficient under model misspecification.

Suggested Citation

  • Brady Ryan & Ananthika Nirmalkanna & Candemir Cigsar & Yildiz E. Yilmaz, 2023. "Evaluation of Designs and Estimation Methods Under Response-Dependent Two-Phase Sampling for Genetic Association Studies," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 15(2), pages 510-539, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:15:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s12561-023-09369-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s12561-023-09369-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12561-023-09369-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12561-023-09369-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ran Tao & Donglin Zeng & Dan-Yu Lin, 2017. "Efficient Semiparametric Inference Under Two-Phase Sampling, With Applications to Genetic Association Studies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(520), pages 1468-1476, October.
    2. Alastair Scott & Chris Wild, 2001. "Case–control studies with complex sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 50(3), pages 389-401.
    3. J. F. Lawless, 2018. "Two-phase outcome-dependent studies for failure times and testing for effects of expensive covariates," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 28-44, January.
    4. N. E. Breslow & N. Chatterjee, 1999. "Design and analysis of two‐phase studies with binary outcome applied to Wilms tumour prognosis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 48(4), pages 457-468.
    5. Chatterjee N. & Chen Y-H. & Breslow N.E., 2003. "A Pseudoscore Estimator for Regression Problems With Two-Phase Sampling," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 158-168, January.
    6. Thomas Lumley & Pamela A. Shaw & James Y. Dai, 2011. "Connections between Survey Calibration Estimators and Semiparametric Models for Incomplete Data," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 79(2), pages 200-220, August.
    7. Haibo Zhou & M. A. Weaver & J. Qin & M. P. Longnecker & M. C. Wang, 2002. "A Semiparametric Empirical Likelihood Method for Data from an Outcome-Dependent Sampling Scheme with a Continuous Outcome," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 413-421, June.
    8. Norman E. Breslow & Richard Holubkov, 1997. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Logistic Regression Parameters under Two‐phase, Outcome‐dependent Sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(2), pages 447-461.
    9. Ran Tao & Donglin Zeng & Dan-Yu Lin, 2020. "Optimal Designs of Two-Phase Studies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 115(532), pages 1946-1959, December.
    10. Andriy Derkach & Jerald F. Lawless & Lei Sun, 2015. "Score tests for association under response-dependent sampling designs for expensive covariates," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 102(4), pages 988-994.
    11. Qin, Yongsong & Li, Ling & Lei, Qingzhu, 2009. "Empirical likelihood for linear regression models with missing responses," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(11), pages 1391-1396, June.
    12. J. F. Lawless & J. D. Kalbfleisch & C. J. Wild, 1999. "Semiparametric methods for response‐selective and missing data problems in regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 61(2), pages 413-438, April.
    13. Alice S. Whittemore, 1997. "Multistage Sampling Designs and Estimating Equations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(3), pages 589-602.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. F. Lawless, 2018. "Two-phase outcome-dependent studies for failure times and testing for effects of expensive covariates," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 28-44, January.
    2. Gustavo Amorim & Ran Tao & Sarah Lotspeich & Pamela A. Shaw & Thomas Lumley & Bryan E. Shepherd, 2021. "Two‐phase sampling designs for data validation in settings with covariate measurement error and continuous outcome," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1368-1389, October.
    3. Chiara Di Gravio & Ran Tao & Jonathan S. Schildcrout, 2023. "Design and analysis of two‐phase studies with multivariate longitudinal data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1420-1432, June.
    4. Qingning Zhou & Jianwen Cai & Haibo Zhou, 2018. "Outcome†dependent sampling with interval†censored failure time data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 58-67, March.
    5. Haibo Zhou & Rui Song & Yuanshan Wu & Jing Qin, 2011. "Statistical Inference for a Two-Stage Outcome-Dependent Sampling Design with a Continuous Outcome," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 194-202, March.
    6. Bryan E. Shepherd & Kyunghee Han & Tong Chen & Aihua Bian & Shannon Pugh & Stephany N. Duda & Thomas Lumley & William J. Heerman & Pamela A. Shaw, 2023. "Multiwave validation sampling for error‐prone electronic health records," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2649-2663, September.
    7. Xiaofei Wang & Haibo Zhou, 2006. "A Semiparametric Empirical Likelihood Method for Biased Sampling Schemes with Auxiliary Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 1149-1160, December.
    8. Jieli Ding & Tsui-Shan Lu & Jianwen Cai & Haibo Zhou, 2017. "Recent progresses in outcome-dependent sampling with failure time data," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 57-82, January.
    9. Qingning Zhou & Jianwen Cai & Haibo Zhou, 2020. "Semiparametric inference for a two-stage outcome-dependent sampling design with interval-censored failure time data," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 85-108, January.
    10. S. Haneuse & J. Chen, 2011. "A Multiphase Design Strategy for Dealing with Participation Bias," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 309-318, March.
    11. Michelle Ross & Jon Wakefield, 2013. "Bayesian Inference for Two-Phase Studies with Categorical Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 469-477, June.
    12. Zhiwei Zhang & Howard Rockette, 2006. "Semiparametric Maximum Likelihood for Missing Covariates in Parametric Regression," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 58(4), pages 687-706, December.
    13. Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Shawn P. Garbett & Patrick J. Heagerty, 2013. "Outcome Vector Dependent Sampling with Longitudinal Continuous Response Data: Stratified Sampling Based on Summary Statistics," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 405-416, June.
    14. Jacob M. Maronge & Ran Tao & Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Paul J. Rathouz, 2023. "Generalized case‐control sampling under generalized linear models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 332-343, March.
    15. Christopher Vahl & Qing Kang, 2015. "Analysis of an outcome-dependent enriched sample: hypothesis tests," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(3), pages 387-409, September.
    16. Yang Zhao & Meng Liu, 2021. "Unified approach for regression models with nonmonotone missing at random data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 105(1), pages 87-101, March.
    17. Fatema Shafie Khorassani & Jeremy M. G. Taylor & Niko Kaciroti & Michael R. Elliott, 2023. "Incorporating Covariates into Measures of Surrogate Paradox Risk," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Constantine E. Frangakis & Stuart G. Baker, 2001. "Compliance Subsampling Designs for Comparative Research: Estimation and Optimal Planning," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 899-908, September.
    19. Sebastien J.‐P. A. Haneuse & And Jonathan C. Wakefield, 2008. "The combination of ecological and case–control data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(1), pages 73-93, February.
    20. Haibo Zhou & Guoyou Qin & Matthew P. Longnecker, 2011. "A Partial Linear Model in the Outcome-Dependent Sampling Setting to Evaluate the Effect of Prenatal PCB Exposure on Cognitive Function in Children," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 876-885, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:stabio:v:15:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s12561-023-09369-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.