Navigation Links
Claims of sex-related differences in genetic association studies often not properly validated
Date:8/21/2007

A review of previous research suggests that prominent claims of sex differences of gene-disease associations are often insufficiently documented and validated, according to an article in the August 22/29 issue of JAMA.

In the human genome era, for many common diseases, published research has often considered that some common gene variants may have different effects in men vs. women. Many diseases or traits with strong genetic backgrounds have different prevalence in the two sexes and many studies try to determine differences in risks between men and women, according to background information in the article.

Nikolaos A. Patsopoulos, M.D., of the University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece and colleagues evaluated a large sample of prominently claimed sex differences for genetic effects and whether these claims were methodologically strong or were made based on selected and/or suboptimal analyses and with insufficient or questionable documentation. From a database search the authors identified 77 articles with 432 sex-difference claims.

Of these claims, 286 (66.2 percent) sex comparisons were reported as being decided a priori (in advance of the study) and 68 (15.7 percent) were acknowledged to be post hoc (after the study) analyses; in the other 78 (18.1 percent), the analysis plan was unclear. Appropriate documentation of gene-sex interaction was recorded in 55 claims (12.7 percent); documentation was insufficient for 303 claims and spurious (not valid) for the other 74. Data for reanalysis of claims were available for 188 comparisons. Of these, 83 (44.1 percent) were nominally statistically significant, and more than half of them (n = 44) failed to reach nominal statistical significance of a certain level. Of 60 claims with seemingly the best internal validity, only one was consistently replicated in at least two other studies.

the majority of these claims were insufficiently documented or spurious, and reporting of statistical interaction tests was rare, the authors write.

We hope that our empirical evaluation will help sensitize clinicians, geneticists, epidemiologists, and statisticians who are pursuing subgroup analyses by sex or other subgroups on genetic associations. The pursuit of gene-sex interactions should not be necessarily abandoned. Ideally, sex differences should be based on a priori, clearly defined, and adequately powered subgroups. Post hoc, discovery-based analyses are also of interest, but their post hoc character should be clearly stated in the manuscript. Both a priori and post hoc claims should be documented by interaction tests and proper consideration of the multiplicity of comparisons involved. Even then, results should be explained with caution and should be replicated by several other studies before being accepted as likely modifications of genetic or other risks.


'/>"/>

Contact: John P. A. Ioannidis
jioannid@cc.uoi.gr
JAMA and Archives Journals
Source:Eurekalert

Related biology news :

1. UCLA Study Shows One-Third of Drug Ads in Medical Journals Do Not Contain References Supporting Medical Claims
2. Variation in womens X chromosomes may explain differences among individuals, between sexes
3. Big differences in duplicated DNA distinguish chimp and human genomes
4. Comparison of Cocaine, Methamphetamine ‘Highs?Finds Differences
5. Identical twins may have more differences than meet the eye
6. Study outlines genetic differences between potential pandemic influenza strains
7. Brain differences could explain why males and females experience pain relief differently
8. Most human-chimp differences due to gene regulation ?not genes
9. Albatross study shows regional differences in ocean contamination
10. Viral genetic differences are possible key to HIV dementia
11. New brain-chemistry differences found in depressed women
Post Your Comments:
*Name:
*Comment:
*Email:
(Date:5/12/2016)... -- WearablesResearch.com , a brand of Troubadour Research ... the Q1 wave of its quarterly wearables survey. A ... to a program where they would receive discounts for ... "We were surprised to see that so ... , CEO of Troubadour Research, "primarily because there are ...
(Date:4/28/2016)... , April 28, 2016 First quarter ... (139.9), up 966% compared with the first quarter of 2015 ... totaled SEK 589.1 M (loss: 18.8) and the operating margin was ... (loss: 0.32) Cash flow from operations was SEK 249.9 ... 2016 revenue guidance is unchanged, SEK 7,000-8,500 M. The ...
(Date:4/15/2016)... 15, 2016  A new partnership announced today ... underwriting decisions in a fraction of the time ... and high-value life insurance policies to consumers without ... With Force Diagnostics, rapid testing (A1C, Cotinine and ... (blood pressure, weight, pulse, BMI, and activity data) ...
Breaking Biology News(10 mins):
(Date:6/27/2016)... CLEVELAND , June 27, 2016  Global ... average 4.6 percent through 2020 to $7.2 billion.  ... (food and beverages, cleaning products, biofuel production, animal ... and biotechnology, diagnostics, and biocatalysts). Food and beverages ... gains driven by increasing consumption of products containing ...
(Date:6/27/2016)... ... June 27, 2016 , ... Newly created 4Sight ... solutions to the healthcare market. The company's primary focus is on new product ... marketing strategies that are necessary to help companies efficiently bring their products to ...
(Date:6/24/2016)... June 24, 2016 Epic Sciences unveiled ... cancers susceptible to PARP inhibitors by targeting homologous ... (CTCs). The new test has already been incorporated ... multiple cancer types. Over 230 clinical ... response pathways, including PARP, ATM, ATR, DNA-PK and ...
(Date:6/23/2016)...   Boston Biomedical , an industry leader ... target cancer stemness pathways, announced that its lead ... Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ... gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Napabucasin is an orally ... stemness pathways by targeting STAT3, and is currently ...
Breaking Biology Technology: