Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Statistical power considerations in genotype-based recall randomized controlled trials.

Scientific reports - 25 Nov 2016

Atabaki-Pasdar Naeimeh, Ohlsson Mattias, Shungin Dmitry, Kurbasic Azra, Ingelsson Erik, Pearson Ewan R, Ali Ashfaq, Franks Paul W

Abstract excerpt

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are often underpowered for validating gene-treatment interactions. Using published data from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), we examined power in conventional and genotype-based recall (GBR) trials. We calculated sample size and statistical power for gene-metformin interactions (vs. placebo) using incidence rates, gene-drug interaction effect estimates and allele...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
Share to Exercise

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Hypoglycemic Agents

Share to Metformin

Share to Organic Cation Transport Proteins

Share to Outcome Assessment, Health Care

Share to Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Share to Sample Size

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 27886175
DOI: 10.1038/srep37307
PMCID: PMC5122840

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-07.1.

Source receipt: pubmed, retrieved 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Statistical power considerations in genotype-based recall randomized controlled trials.PMID 27886175Read ↗

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement.Semantic proximity Read ↗

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement.Semantic proximity Read ↗

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement.Semantic proximity Read ↗

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of GLP-1R Agonist and SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy in the General Population: A 2x2 Factorial Mendelian Randomization StudySemantic proximity Read ↗

Quantifying the extent to which index event biases influence large genetic association studiesSemantic proximity Read ↗

A comprehensive evaluation of methods for Mendelian randomization using realistic simulations and an analysis of 38 biomarkers for risk of type 2 diabetes.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Exploiting collider bias to apply two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization methods to one-sample individual level data.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Assessing the impact of differential genotyping errors on rare variant tests of association.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Exploiting collider bias to apply two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization methods to one-sample individual level dataSemantic proximity Read ↗

Genetic variability and potential effects on clinical trial outcomes: perspectives in Parkinson’s diseaseSemantic proximity Read ↗

Genotype-based risk and pharmacogenetic sampling in clinical trials.Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.