Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Genetics and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Methodology article

Power and sample size calculations in the presence of phenotype errors for case/control genetic association studies

Brian J Edwards1, Chad Haynes1, Mark A Levenstien1, Stephen J Finch2 and Derek Gordon1*

Author Affiliations

1 Laboratory of Statistical Genetics, Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10021, USA

2 Department of Applied Math and Statistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Genetics 2005, 6:18  doi:10.1186/1471-2156-6-18

Published: 8 April 2005

Abstract

Background

Phenotype error causes reduction in power to detect genetic association. We present a quantification of phenotype error, also known as diagnostic error, on power and sample size calculations for case-control genetic association studies between a marker locus and a disease phenotype. We consider the classic Pearson chi-square test for independence as our test of genetic association. To determine asymptotic power analytically, we compute the distribution's non-centrality parameter, which is a function of the case and control sample sizes, genotype frequencies, disease prevalence, and phenotype misclassification probabilities. We derive the non-centrality parameter in the presence of phenotype errors and equivalent formulas for misclassification cost (the percentage increase in minimum sample size needed to maintain constant asymptotic power at a fixed significance level for each percentage increase in a given misclassification parameter). We use a linear Taylor Series approximation for the cost of phenotype misclassification to determine lower bounds for the relative costs of misclassifying a true affected (respectively, unaffected) as a control (respectively, case). Power is verified by computer simulation.

Results

Our major findings are that: (i) the median absolute difference between analytic power with our method and simulation power was 0.001 and the absolute difference was no larger than 0.011; (ii) as the disease prevalence approaches 0, the cost of misclassifying a unaffected as a case becomes infinitely large while the cost of misclassifying an affected as a control approaches 0.

Conclusion

Our work enables researchers to specifically quantify power loss and minimum sample size requirements in the presence of phenotype errors, thereby allowing for more realistic study design. For most diseases of current interest, verifying that cases are correctly classified is of paramount importance.