. "8 Study Design and Analysis for Assessment of Interactions ." Genes, Behavior, and the Social Environment: Moving Beyond the Nature/Nurture Debate. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Genes, Behavior, and the Social Environment: Moving Beyond the Nature/Nurture Debate
Rothman KJ, Greenland S. 2005. Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. AmericanJournal of Public Health 95(Suppl 1):S144-S150.
Sabatti C, Service S, Freimer N. 2003. False discovery rate in linkage and association genome screens for complex disorders. Genetics 164(2):829-833.
Siemiatycki J, Thomas DC. 1981. Biological models and statistical interactions: An example from multistage carcinogenesis. International Journal of Epidemiology 10(4):383-387.
Smith PG, Day NE. 1984. The design of case-control studies: The influence of confounding and interaction effects. International Journal of Epidemiology 13(3):356-365.
Storey JD, Tibshirani R. 2003. Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(16):9440-9445.
Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, Kardia SLR, Zhu X, Brown A, Pankow JS, Province MA, Hunt SC, Boerwinkle E, Schork NJ, Risch NJ. 2005. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. American Journal ofHuman Genetics 76(2):268-275.
Teng J, Risch N. 1999. The relative power of family-based and case-control designs for linkage disequilibrium studies of complex human diseases. II. Individual genotyping. GenomeResearch 9(3):234-241.
Thomas DC, Witte JS. 2002. Point: Population stratification: A problem for case-control studies of candidate-gene associations? Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 11(6): 505-512.
Thomas DC, Haile RW, Duggan D. 2005. Recent developments in genomewide association scans: A workshop summary and review. American Journal of Human Genetics 77(3): 337-345.
Tweel I, Schipper M. 2004. Sequential tests for gene-environment interactions in matched case-control studies. Statistics in Medicine 23(24):3755-3771.
Vandenbroucke JP, Koster T, Briet E, Reitsma PH, Bertina RM, Rosendaal FR. 1994. Increased risk of venous thrombosis in oral-contraceptive users who are carriers of factor V Leiden mutation. Lancet 344(8935):1453-1457.
Vineis P. 2004. A self-fulfilling prophecy: Are we underestimating the role of the environment in gene-environment interaction research? International Journal of Epidemiology 33(5): 945-946.
Wacholder S, Rothman N, Caporaso N. 2000. Population stratification in epidemiologic studies of common genetic variants and cancer: Quantification of bias. Journal of the NationalCancer Institute 92(14):1151-1158.
Wacholder S, Rothman N, Caporaso N. 2002. Counterpoint: Bias from population stratification is not a major threat to the validity of conclusions from epidemiological studies of common polymorphisms and cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 11(6):513-520.
Witte JS, Gauderman WJ, Thomas DC. 1999. Asymptotic bias and efficiency in case-control studies of candidate genes and gene-environment interactions: Basic family designs. American Journal of Epidemiology 149(8):693-705.
Wong MY, Day NE, Luan JA, Chan KP, Wareham NJ. 2003. The detection of gene-environment interaction for continuous traits: Should we deal with measurement error by bigger studies or better measurement? International Journal of Epidemiology 32(1):51-57.
Yaffe K, Haan M, Byers A, Tangen C, Kuller L. 2000. Estrogen use, APOE, and cognitive decline: Evidence of gene-environment interaction. Neurology 54(10):1949-1954.
Yang Q, Khoury MJ, Friedman JM, Flanders WD. 2003. On the use of population attributable fraction to determine sample size for case-control studies of gene-environment interaction. Epidemiology 14(2):161-167.