We are aware that most of the genetic association studies are under-powered just because of the fact the sample size is inadequate. The major reason for the power to be small is because, in most situations either or both the risk allele frequency and the prevalence of the phenotype tend to be very small. This demand a very high sample size (in thousands) to either accept or reject null hypothesis (though power matters more in negative studies which fail to reject null hypothesis). But there are situations when the risk allele frequency (0.5-0.7) and prevalence of phenotype are high (50-70 %), in which case the sample size that is required to show a decent effect size comes down to range of few tens (20-40). However, the journals either reject the submission or recommend us to mention that sample size is small. I don't know why. Comments regarding this are welcome.

More Veera Manikandan R's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions