Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, section of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Molecular Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jan 6;21(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01193-7.
Although human longevity tends to cluster within families, genetic studies on longevity have had limited success in identifying longevity loci. One of the main causes of this limited success is the selection of participants. Studies generally include sporadically long-lived individuals, i.e. individuals with the longevity phenotype but without a genetic predisposition for longevity. The inclusion of these individuals causes phenotype heterogeneity which results in power reduction and bias. A way to avoid sporadically long-lived individuals and reduce sample heterogeneity is to include family history of longevity as selection criterion using a longevity family score. A main challenge when developing family scores are the large differences in family size, because of real differences in sibship sizes or because of missing data.
We discussed the statistical properties of two existing longevity family scores: the Family Longevity Selection Score (FLoSS) and the Longevity Relatives Count (LRC) score and we evaluated their performance dealing with differential family size. We proposed a new longevity family score, the mLRC score, an extension of the LRC based on random effects modeling, which is robust for family size and missing values. The performance of the new mLRC as selection tool was evaluated in an intensive simulation study and illustrated in a large real dataset, the Historical Sample of the Netherlands (HSN).
Empirical scores such as the FLOSS and LRC cannot properly deal with differential family size and missing data. Our simulation study showed that mLRC is not affected by family size and provides more accurate selections of long-lived families. The analysis of 1105 sibships of the Historical Sample of the Netherlands showed that the selection of long-lived individuals based on the mLRC score predicts excess survival in the validation set better than the selection based on the LRC score .
Model-based score systems such as the mLRC score help to reduce heterogeneity in the selection of long-lived families. The power of future studies into the genetics of longevity can likely be improved and their bias reduced, by selecting long-lived cases using the mLRC.
尽管人类的长寿倾向于在家族中聚集,但遗传研究在确定长寿基因座方面的成功有限。这种成功有限的主要原因之一是参与者的选择。研究通常包括偶尔长寿的个体,即具有长寿表型但没有长寿遗传倾向的个体。这些个体的纳入导致表型异质性,从而导致效力降低和偏差。避免偶尔长寿个体和减少样本异质性的一种方法是使用长寿家族评分作为选择标准纳入长寿家族史。开发家族评分的主要挑战是家族规模的差异很大,这是由于同胞规模的实际差异或由于缺失数据。
我们讨论了两种现有的长寿家族评分的统计性质:家族长寿选择评分(FLoSS)和长寿亲属计数(LRC)评分,并评估了它们处理不同家族规模的性能。我们提出了一种新的长寿家族评分,即 mLRC 评分,它是基于随机效应建模的 LRC 的扩展,对家族规模和缺失值具有稳健性。在密集的模拟研究中评估了新 mLRC 作为选择工具的性能,并在大型真实数据集,即荷兰历史样本(HSN)中进行了说明。
经验评分,如 FLoSS 和 LRC,不能正确处理不同的家族规模和缺失数据。我们的模拟研究表明,mLRC 不受家族规模的影响,并提供了更准确的长寿家族选择。对荷兰历史样本的 1105 个同胞系的分析表明,基于 mLRC 评分选择长寿个体比基于 LRC 评分更好地预测验证集中的超额生存。
基于模型的评分系统,如 mLRC 评分,可以帮助减少长寿家族选择中的异质性。通过使用 mLRC 选择长寿病例,未来长寿遗传学研究的效力可能会提高,偏差可能会降低。