ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2002
Statistics for nonparametric linkage analysis of X-linked traits in general pedigrees.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The power and statistical behaviour of allele-sharing statistics when applied to models with two disease loci.Journal of genetics · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have compared the power of several allele-sharing statistics for "nonparametric" linkage analysis of X-linked traits in nuclear families and extended pedigrees. Our rationale was that, although several of these statistics have been implemented in popular software packages, there has been no formal evaluation of their relative power. Here, we evaluate the relative performance of five test statistics, including two new test statistics. We considered sibships of sizes two through four, four different extended pedigrees, 15 different genetic models (12 single-locus models and 3 two-locus models), and varying recombination fractions between the marker and the trait locus. We analytically estimated the sample sizes required for 80% power at a significance level of.001 and also used simulation methods to estimate power for a sample size of 10 families. We tried to identify statistics whose power was robust over a wide variety of models, with the idea that such statistics would be particularly useful for detection of X-linked loci associated with complex traits. We found that a commonly used statistic, S(all), generally performed well under various conditions and had close to the optimal sample sizes in most cases but that there were certain cases in which it performed quite poorly. Our two new statistics did not perform any better than those already in the literature. We also note that, under dominant and additive models, regardless of the statistic used, pedigrees with all-female siblings have very little power to detect X-linked loci.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.