Shiny application for the analysis of groundwater
    monitoring data, designed to work with simple time-series data for
    solute concentration and ground water elevation, but can also plot
    non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) thickness if required. Also provides
    the import of a site basemap in GIS shapefile format.

The correlations and linkage disequilibrium between tests can vary as a function of minor allele frequency thresholds used to filter variants, and also varies with different choices of test statistic for region-based tests. Appropriate genome-wide significance thresholds can be estimated empirically through permutation on only a small proportion of the whole genome.

Fits a geographically weighted regression model
	using zero inflated probability distributions. Has the zero 
	inflated negative binomial distribution (zinb) as default, 
	but also accepts the zero inflated Poisson (zip), negative
	binomial (negbin) and Poisson distributions. Can also fit 
	the global versions of each regression model.
	Da Silva, A. R. & De Sousa, M. D. R. (2023). "Geographically weighted zero-inflated negative binomial regression: A general case for count data", Spatial Statistics <doi:10.1016/j.spasta.2023.100790>.
	Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A. S., & Charlton, M. E. (1996). "Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity", Geographical Analysis, <doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00936.x>.
	Yau, K. K. W., Wang, K., & Lee, A. H. (2003). "Zero-inflated negative binomial mixed regression modeling of over-dispersed count data with extra zeros", Biometrical Journal, <doi:10.1002/bimj.200390024>.

A novel PRS model is introduced to enhance the prediction accuracy by utilising GxE effects. This package performs Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and Genome Wide Environment Interaction Studies (GWEIS) using a discovery dataset. The package has the ability to obtain polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for a target sample. Finally it predicts the risk values of each individual in the target sample. Users have the choice of using existing models (Li et al., 2015) <doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu565>, (Pandis et al., 2013) <doi:10.1093/ejo/cjt054>, (Peyrot et al., 2018) <doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.09.009> and (Song et al., 2022) <doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32407-9>, as well as newly proposed models for genomic risk prediction (refer to the URL for more details).