ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2003
Recent advances in human quantitative-trait-locus mapping: comparison of methods for discordant sibling pairs.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of genotyping error in linkage mapping for complex traits--an analytic study.BMC genetics · 2008Article
- Robust score statistics for QTL linkage analysis.American journal of human genetics · 2008Article
- A unified framework for linkage and association analysis of quantitative traits.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2007Article
- Mapping quantitative trait loci in humans: achievements and limitations.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2005Review
- Variants in the vitamin D receptor gene and asthma.BMC genetics · 2005Article
- A powerful and robust new linkage statistic for discordant sibling pairs.American journal of human genetics · 2004Article
- Theoretical and empirical power of regression and maximum-likelihood methods to map quantitative trait loci in general pedigrees.American journal of human genetics · 2004Article
- Recent advances in human quantitative-trait-locus mapping: comparison of methods for selected sibling pairs.American journal of human genetics · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extreme discordant sibling pairs (EDSPs) are theoretically powerful for the mapping of quantitative-trait loci (QTLs) in humans. EDSPs have not been used much in practice, however, because of the need to screen very large populations to find enough pairs that are extreme and discordant. Given appropriate statistical methods, another alternative is to use moderately discordant sibling pairs (MDSPs)--pairs that are discordant but not at the far extremes of the distribution. Such pairs can be powerful yet far easier to collect than extreme discordant pairs. Recent work on statistical methods for QTL mapping in humans has included a number of methods that, though not developed specifically for discordant pairs, may well be powerful for MDSPs and possibly even EDSPs. In the present article, we survey the new statistics and discuss their applicability to discordant pairs. We then use simulation to study the type I error and the power of various statistics for EDSPs and for MDSPs. We conclude that the best statistic(s) for discordant pairs (moderate or extreme) is (are) to be found among the new statistics. We suggest that the new statistics are appropriate for many other designs as well-and that, in fact, they open the way for the exploration of entirely novel designs.
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.