Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 97(8):550-551; doi:10.1093/jnci/dji122
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matullo, G.
Right arrow Articles by Vineis, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Matullo, G.
Right arrow Articles by Vineis, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 Oxford University Press

EDITORIAL

Gene–Environment Interactions: How Many False Positives?

Giuseppe Matullo, Marianne Berwick, Paolo Vineis

Affiliations of authors: Foundation and University of Torino, Italy (GM); Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (MB); Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK (PV)

Correspondence to: Marianne Berwick, PhD, MD, MSC 08 4630, Room 103A, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (e-mail: mberwick@salud.unm.edu).

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

In this issue of the Journal, Hung et al. (1) describe the results of a large study on the association between base excision repair gene polymorphisms and lung cancer risk. Their study demonstrates problems typical of investigations of gene–environment interactions, in particular, the fact that among the generally negative results, some seemingly noteworthy associations are identified in subgroups of subjects who are defined on the basis of their tumor histology or smoking habits. The unique aspect of this study is that the authors have estimated the probability that the associations found are attributable to chance (i.e., false positives). The idea of evaluating new observations in the light of existing evidence is not novel and belongs to at least two traditions: Bayesian statistics and clinical epidemiology. In clinical epidemiology, formal . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
M. Manuguerra, G. Matullo, F. Veglia, H. Autrup, A.M. Dunning, S. Garte, E. Gormally, C. Malaveille, S. Guarrera, S. Polidoro, et al.
Multi-factor dimensionality reduction applied to a large prospective investigation on gene-gene and gene-environment interactions
Carcinogenesis, February 1, 2007; 28(2): 414 - 422.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
D. C. Thomas
Are We Ready for Genome-wide Association Studies?
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2006; 15(4): 595 - 598.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
T. Paz-Elizur, D. E. Brenner, and Z. Livneh
Interrogating DNA Repair in Cancer Risk Assessment
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2005; 14(7): 1585 - 1587.
[Full Text] [PDF]