Whole-genome association studies (WGAS) bring new computational, as well as analytic, challenges to researchers. Many existing genetic-analysis tools are not designed to handle such large data sets in a convenient manner and do not necessarily exploit the new opportunities that whole-genome data bring. To address these issues, we developed PLINK, an open-source C/C++ WGAS tool set. With PLINK, large data sets comprising hundreds of thousands of markers genotyped for thousands of individuals can be rapidly manipulated and analyzed in their entirety. As well as providing tools to make the basic analytic steps computationally efficient, PLINK also supports some novel approaches to whole-genome data that take advantage of whole-genome coverage. We introduce PLINK and describe the five main domains of function: data management, summary statistics, population stratification, association analysis, and identity-by-descent estimation. In particular, we focus on the estimation and use of identity-by-state and identity-by-descent information in the context of population-based whole-genome studies. This information can be used to detect and correct for population stratification and to identify extended chromosomal segments that are shared identical by descent between very distantly related individuals. Analysis of the patterns of segmental sharing has the potential to map disease loci that contain multiple rare variants in a population-based linkage analysis.

http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/cdrom2009/ScriptsA/purcell/GWAS/boulder_09_plink_intro.pdf

PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

/pdf/the-strengthening-the-reporting-of-observational-studies-in-1a60tcw2sx.pdf

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

/pdf/the-strengthening-the-reporting-of-observational-studies-in-5fvhasotyl.pdf

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Hereditary hematologic disorders (HHD) have been reported in excess among infants and families of infants with congenital cardiovascular malformations (CCM) compared with controls, suggesting possible common pathogenetic mechanisms. It is plausible that hemodynamic changes during pregnancy associated with HHD could affect cardiac morphogenesis. To investigate whether offspring of women with selected HHD have an excess risk of CCM, the authors examined data from a nationwide birth defects monitoring program (BDMP) covering about 2.9 million births in the United States between 1982 and 1988. The system ascertains major birth defects diagnosed in the newborn period. An anonymous linkage procedure linked maternal obstetric records with newborn records using demographic, diagnostic, and geographic variables. A total of 1,239 mothers were identified with selected HHD (47 hereditary spherocytosis, 575 thalassemias, 310 sickle cell anemia, 88 other hereditary hemolytic anemias, 159 von Willebrand disease, and 60 other congenital coagulapathies). In all, 14 infants received a newborn discharge diagnosis of CCM (expected number based on population rates of CCM from the same hospitals and time period is 7.74; P = 0.0268). No single CCM entity accounted for this excess. In contrast, 8 infants had major non-CCM defects (expected number 7.46; P = 0.466). These data suggest an excess risk of CCM among offspring of women with selected HHD. Further studies are needed to explore these findings and to evaluate the pathogenetic significance of this association.

Are offspring of women with hereditary hematologic disorders at increased risk of congenital cardiovascular malformations

Human genome epidemiology: The road map revisited

Background
Because common diseases are caused by complex interactions among many genetic variants along with environmental risk factors, very large sample sizes are usually needed to detect such effects in case-control studies. Nevertheless, many genetic variants act in well defined biologic systems or metabolic pathways. Therefore, a reasonable first step may be to detect the effect of a group of genetic variants before assessing specific variants.

/pdf/sample-size-requirements-to-detect-the-effect-of-a-group-of-2mqogd48sq.pdf

Sample size requirements to detect the effect of a group of genetic variants in case-control studies

textMultifactorial diseases such as type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease are caused by a
complex interplay of many genetic and nongenetic factors, each of which conveys a minor increase in the risk
of disease. Unraveling the genetic origins of these diseases is expected to lead to individualized medicine, in
which the prevention and treatment strategies are personalized on the basis of the results of predictive genetic
tests. This great optimism is counterbalanced by concerns about the ethical, legal, and social implications of
genomic medicine, such as the protection of privacy and autonomy, stigmatization, discrimination, and the
psychological burden of genetic testing. These concerns are translated from genetic testing in monogenic
disorders, but this translation may not be appropriate. Multiple genetic testing (genomic profiling) has
essential differences from genetic testing in monogenic disorders. The differences lie in the lower predictive
value of the test results, the pleiotropic effects of susceptibility genes, and the low inheritance of genomic
profiles. For these reasons, genomic profiling may be more similar to nongenetic tests than to predictive tests
for monogenic diseases. Therefore, ethical, legal, and social issues that apply to predictive genetic testing for
monogenic diseases may not be relevant for the prediction of multifactorial disorders in genomic medicine.

/pdf/predictive-value-of-testing-for-multiple-genetic-variants-in-3enrpwghq4.pdf

Muin J. Khoury

Papers

Are offspring of women with hereditary hematologic disorders at increased risk of congenital cardiovascular malformations

Human genome epidemiology: The road map revisited

Sample size requirements to detect the effect of a group of genetic variants in case-control studies

Predictive value of testing for multiple genetic variants in multifactorial

Utility before business.