This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Genetics, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Men's Health, Other  • Women's Health, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

An Empirical Assessment in Genetic Associations

Nikolaos A. Patsopoulos, MD; Athina Tatsioni, MD; John P. A. Ioannidis, MD

JAMA. 2007;298(8):880-893.

Context  Many studies try to probe for differences in risks between men and women, and this is a major challenge in the expanding literature of associations between genetic variants and common diseases or traits.

Objective  To evaluate whether prominently claimed sex differences for genetic effects have sufficient internal and external validity.

Data Sources  We searched PubMed through July 6, 2007, for genetic association studies claiming sex-related differences in the articles' titles. Titles and abstracts and, if necessary, the full text of the article were assessed for eligibility.

Study Selection  Two hundred fifteen articles were retrieved by the search. We considered eligible all retrieved association studies that claimed different genetic effects across sexes of 1 or more gene variants for any human disease or phenotype. We considered both biallelic and multiallelic markers (including haplotypes) and both binary and continuous phenotypes and traits. We excluded non–English-language studies; studies evaluating only 1 sex; studies in which sex was treated only as an independent predictor of disease; studies that did not address any association of the investigated genetic variant with a disease or trait; studies not involving humans; and studies in which the authors did not claim any sex difference.

Data Extraction  Two evaluators independently extracted data with a third evaluator arbitrating their discrepancies. Data evaluation included whether analyses were stated to have been specified a priori; whether sex effects were evaluated in the whole study or subgroups thereof; and whether the claims were appropriately documented, insufficiently documented, or spurious. For appropriately and insufficiently documented claims we performed the calculations for gene-sex interaction whenever raw data were available. Finally, we compared the sex-difference claims with the best internal validity against the results of other studies addressing the same interaction.

Results  We appraised 432 sex-difference claims in 77 eligible articles. Authors stated that sex comparisons were decided a priori for 286 claims (66.2%), while the entire sample size was used in 210 (48.6%) claims. Appropriate documentation of gene-sex interaction was recorded in 55 claims (12.7%); documentation was insufficient for 303 claims and spurious for the other 74. Data for reanalysis of claims were available for 188 comparisons. Of these, 83 (44.1%) were nominally statistically significant at a P = .05 threshold, and more than half of them (n = 44) had modest P values between .01 and .05. Of 60 claims with seemingly the best internal validity, only 1 was consistently replicated in at least 2 other studies.

Conclusion  In this sample of highly prominent claims of sex-related differences in genetic associations, most claims were insufficiently documented or spurious, and claims with documented good internal and external validity were uncommon.

Author Affiliations: Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine (Drs Patsopoulos, Tatsioni, Ioannidis), and Biomedical Research Institute, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, Ioannina, Greece (Dr Ioannidis); and Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (Drs Tatsioni and Ioannidis).

RELATED LETTERS

Claims of Sex-Gene Interactions
Paul F. Pinsky
JAMA. 2007;298(23):2741-2742.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Claims of Sex-Gene Interactions—Reply
Nikolaos A. Patsopoulos, Athina Tatsioni, and John P. A. Ioannidis
JAMA. 2007;298(23):2742.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Genetic Variants of Tumor Necrosis Factor Superfamily, Member 4 (TNFSF4), and Risk of Incident Atherothrombosis and Venous Thromboembolism
Malarstig et al.
Clin. Chem. 2008;54:833-840.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Sex-stratified Linkage Analysis Identifies a Female-specific Locus for IgE to Cockroach in Costa Ricans
Hunninghake et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2008;177:830-836.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

"Intention to Analyze" in Pharmacogenomics Studies
Munafo et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:740-741.
FULL TEXT  

Strong evidence that GNB1L is associated with schizophrenia
Williams et al.
Hum Mol Genet 2008;17:555-566.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Required sample size and nonreplicability thresholds for heterogeneous genetic associations
Moonesinghe et al.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008;105:617-622.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Claims of Sex-Gene Interactions
Pinsky
JAMA 2007;298:2741-2742.
FULL TEXT