Size matters: just how big is BIG? Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology

被引:168
作者
Burton, Paul R. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hansell, Anna L. [4 ]
Fortier, Isabel [3 ,5 ]
Manolio, Teri A. [6 ]
Khoury, Muin J. [3 ,7 ]
Little, Julian [3 ,8 ]
Elliott, Paul [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leicester, Dept Hlth Sci, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leics, England
[2] Univ Leicester, Dept Genet, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leics, England
[3] Univ Montreal, P3G, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada
[4] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, London, England
[5] Univ Montreal, Dept Med Sociale & Prevent, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[6] NHGRI, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[7] Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, Natl Off Publ Hlth Genom, Atlanta, GA USA
[8] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
基金
英国惠康基金; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Human genome epidemiology; biobank; sample size; statistical power; simulation studies; measurement error; reliability; aetiological heterogeneity; WIDE ASSOCIATION SCAN; FACTOR-H POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION; COLORECTAL-CANCER; COMMON VARIANTS; COMPLEX DISEASE; TAG SNPS; SUSCEPTIBILITY; RISK;
D O I
10.1093/ije/dyn147
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background Despite earlier doubts, a string of recent successes indicates that if sample sizes are large enough, it is possible-both in theory and in practice-to identify and replicate genetic associations with common complex diseases. But human genome epidemiology is expensive and, from a strategic perspective, it is still unclear what 'large enough' really means. This question has critical implications for governments, funding agencies, bioscientists and the tax-paying public. Difficult strategic decisions with imposing price tags and important opportunity costs must be taken. Methods Conventional power calculations for case-control studies disregard many basic elements of analytic complexity-e. g. errors in clinical assessment, and the impact of unmeasured aetiological determinants-and can seriously underestimate true sample size requirements. This article describes, and applies, a rigorous simulation-based approach to power calculation that deals more comprehensively with analytic complexity and has been implemented on the web as ESPRESSO: (www.p3gobservatory.org/powercalculator.htm). Results Using this approach, the article explores the realistic power profile of stand-alone and nested case-control studies in a variety of settings and provides a robust quantitative foundation for determining the required sample size both of individual biobanks and of large disease-based consortia. Despite universal acknowledgment of the importance of large sample sizes, our results suggest that contemporary initiatives are still, at best, at the lower end of the range of desirable sample size. Insufficient power remains particularly problematic for studies exploring gene-gene or gene-environment interactions. Discussion Sample size calculation must be both accurate and realistic, and we must continue to strengthen national and international cooperation in the design, conduct, harmonization and integration of studies in human genome epidemiology.
引用
收藏
页码:263 / 273
页数:11
相关论文
共 81 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], BIOBANKS HLTH REPORT
  • [2] ARMITAGE S, 1994, STAT METHODS MED RES
  • [3] Evaluating coverage of genome-wide association studies
    Barrett, Jeffrey C.
    Cardon, Lon R.
    [J]. NATURE GENETICS, 2006, 38 (06) : 659 - 662
  • [4] Gene-environment studies: any advantage over environmental studies?
    Bermejo, Justo Lorenzo
    Hemminki, Kari
    [J]. CARCINOGENESIS, 2007, 28 (07) : 1526 - 1532
  • [5] Dissecting complex disease: the quest for the Philosopher's Stone?
    Buchanan, Anne V.
    Weiss, Kenneth M.
    Fullerton, Stephanie M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 35 (03) : 562 - 571
  • [6] Burton P, 1998, STAT MED, V17, P1261, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980615)17:11<1261::AID-SIM846>3.0.CO
  • [7] 2-Z
  • [8] BURTON P, INTRO GENET IN PRESS
  • [9] Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls
    Burton, Paul R.
    Clayton, David G.
    Cardon, Lon R.
    Craddock, Nick
    Deloukas, Panos
    Duncanson, Audrey
    Kwiatkowski, Dominic P.
    McCarthy, Mark I.
    Ouwehand, Willem H.
    Samani, Nilesh J.
    Todd, John A.
    Donnelly, Peter
    Barrett, Jeffrey C.
    Davison, Dan
    Easton, Doug
    Evans, David
    Leung, Hin-Tak
    Marchini, Jonathan L.
    Morris, Andrew P.
    Spencer, Chris C. A.
    Tobin, Martin D.
    Attwood, Antony P.
    Boorman, James P.
    Cant, Barbara
    Everson, Ursula
    Hussey, Judith M.
    Jolley, Jennifer D.
    Knight, Alexandra S.
    Koch, Kerstin
    Meech, Elizabeth
    Nutland, Sarah
    Prowse, Christopher V.
    Stevens, Helen E.
    Taylor, Niall C.
    Walters, Graham R.
    Walker, Neil M.
    Watkins, Nicholas A.
    Winzer, Thilo
    Jones, Richard W.
    McArdle, Wendy L.
    Ring, Susan M.
    Strachan, David P.
    Pembrey, Marcus
    Breen, Gerome
    St Clair, David
    Caesar, Sian
    Gordon-Smith, Katherine
    Jones, Lisa
    Fraser, Christine
    Green, Elain K.
    [J]. NATURE, 2007, 447 (7145) : 661 - 678
  • [10] BURTON PR, 2005, UK BIOBANK EXPECTED