The impact of exposure-biased sampling designs on detection of gene–environment interactions in case–control studies with potential exposure misclassification

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 413-423

  Stenzel, Stephanie L ^a,c   Ahn, Jaeil ^b   Boonstra, Philip S ^a   Gruber, Stephen B ^c   Mukherjee, Bhramar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Case control; Exposure misclassification; Genetic epidemiology; Gene environment interaction; Interaction; Sampling design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION; SAMPLING; SIMULATION; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENVIRONMENT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENE; GENOTYPE; SELECTION BIAS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BAYES THEOREM; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GENES; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 84930476936     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-014-9908-1     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Hunter DJ. Gene–environment interactions in human diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:287–98.
2. Thomas D. Gene–environment-wide association studies: emerging approaches. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:259–72.
3. Dai JY, Logsdon BA, Huang Y, et al. Simultaneously testing for marginal genetic association and gene–environment interaction. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176:164–73.
4. Kraft P, Yen YC, Stram DO, Morrison J, Gauderman WJ. Exploiting gene–environment interaction to detect genetic associations. Hum Hered. 2007;63:111–9.
5. Piegorsch WW, Weinberg CR, Taylor JA. Non-hierarchical logistic models and case-only designs for assessing susceptibility in population-based case–control studies. Stat Med. 1994;13:153–62.
6. Chatterjee N, Carroll RJ. Semiparametric maximum likelihood estimation exploiting gene–environment independence in case–control studies. Biometrika. 2005;92:399–418.
7. Mukherjee B, Chatterjee N. Exploiting gene–environment independence for analysis of case–control studies: an empirical Bayes-type shrinkage estimator to trade-off between bias and efficiency. Biometrics. 2008;64:685–94.
8. Mukherjee B, Ahn J, Gruber SB, Chatterjee N. Testing gene–environment interaction in large-scale case–control association studies: possible choices and comparisons. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:177–90.
9. Oexle K, Meitinger T. Sampling GWAS subjects from risk populations. Genet Epidemiol. 2011;35:148–53.
10. Chen J, Kang G, Vanderweele T, Zhang C, Mukherjee B. Efficient designs of gene–environment interaction studies: implications of Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium and gene–environment independence. Stat Med. 2012;31:2516–30.
11. Garcia-Closas M, Rothman N, Lubin J. Misclassification in case–control studies of gene–environment interactions: assessment of bias and sample size. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1999;8:1043–50.
12. Rothman N, Garcia-Closas M, Stewart WT, Lubin J. The impact of misclassification in case–control studies of gene–environment interactions. IARC Sci publ. 1999;148:89–96.
13. Garcia-Closas M, Thompson WD, Robins JM. Differential misclassification and the assessment of gene–environment interactions in case–control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:426–33.
14. Lindstrom S, Yen YC, Spiegelman D, Kraft P. The impact of gene–environment dependence and misclassification in genetic association studies incorporating gene–environment interactions. Hum Hered. 2009;68:171–81.
15. Carroll RJ, Gail MH, Lubin JH. Case–control studies with errors in covariates. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:185–99.
16. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 111–38.
17. Breslow NE, Chatterjee N. Design and analysis of two-phase studies with binary outcome applied to Wilms tumour prognosis. J R Stat Soc Ser C (Appl Stat). 1999;48(4):457–68. doi:10.1111/1467-9876.00165.
18. Lee AJ, Scott AJ, Wild CJ. Efficient estimation in multi-phase case–control studies. Biometrika. 2010;97(2):361–74. doi:10.1093/biomet/asq009.
19. Lumley T. Survey: analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 3.2.4. 2011. Available online at:http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survey/index.html.
20. Cheng KF. Analysis of case-only studies accounting for genotyping error. Ann Hum Genet. 2007;71:238–48.
21. Wong MY, Day NE, Luan JA, Wareham NJ. Estimation of magnitude in gene–environment interactions in the presence of measurement error. Stat Med. 2004;23:987–98.
22. Greenland S. Statistical uncertainty due to misclassification: implications for validation substudies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:1167–74.
23. Zhang L, Mukherjee B, Ghosh M, Gruber S, Moreno V. Accounting for error due to misclassification of exposures in case–control studies of gene–environment interaction. Stat Med. 2008;27:2756–83.
24. Rice K. Full-likelihood approaches to misclassification of a binary exposure in matched case–control studies. Stat Med. 2003;22:3177–94.
25. Spiegelman DRB, Logan R. Estimation and inference for logistic regression with covariate misclassification and measurement error, in main study/validation study designs. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:51–61.
26. Lobach I, Fan R, Carroll RJ. Genotype-based association mapping of complex diseases: gene–environment interactions with multiple genetic markers and measurement error in environmental exposures. Genet Epidemiol. 2010;34:792–802.
27. Lobach I, Mallick B, Carroll RJ. Semiparametric Bayesian analysis of gene–environment interactions with error in measurement of environmental covariates and missing genetic data. Stat Interface. 2011;4:305–16.