English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Genome-wide association studies are now widely used tools to identify genes and/or regions which may contribute to the development of various diseases.  With case-control data a 2x3 contingency table can be constructed for each SNP to perform genotype-based tests of association.  An increasingly common technique to increase the power to detect an association is to collapse each 2x3 table into a table assuming either a dominant or recessive mode of inheritance (2x2 table).  We consider three different methods of determining which genetic model to choose and show that each of these methods of collapsing genotypes increases the type I error rate (i.e., the rate of false positives).  However, one of these methods does lead to an increase in power compared with the usual genotype- and allele-based tests for most genetic models.

Collapsing SNP Genotypes in Case-Control Genome-Wide Association Studies Increases the Type I Error Rate and Power