Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15986318›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2005

Weighting affected sib pairs by marker informativity.

Daniel Franke, Andreas Ziegler

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel FrankeInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University at Lubeck, Lubeck, Germany.
Andreas Ziegler

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the analysis of affected sib pairs (ASPs), a variety of test statistics is applied in genomewide scans with microsatellite markers. Even in multipoint analyses, these statistics might not fully exploit the power of a given sample, because they do not account for incomplete informativity of an ASP. For meta-analyses of linkage and association studies, it has been shown recently that weighting by informativity increases statistical power. With this idea in mind, the first aim of this article was to introduce a new class of tests for ASPs that are based on the mean test. To take into account how much informativity an ASP contributes, we weighted families inversely proportional to their marker informativity. The weighting scheme is obtained by use of the de Finetti representation of the distribution of identity-by-descent values. We derive the limiting distribution of the weighted mean test and demonstrate the validity of the proposed test. We show that it can be much more powerful than the classical mean test in the case of low marker informativity. In the second part of the article, we propose a Monte Carlo simulation approach for evaluating significance among ASPs. We demonstrate the validity of the simulation approach for both the classical and the weighted mean test. Finally, we illustrate the use of the weighted mean test by reanalyzing two published data sets. In both applications, the maximum LOD score of the weighted mean test is 0.6 higher than that of the classical mean test.

Indexed as

Genetic Diseases, InbornGenetic MarkersAllelesChromosome MappingFamily HealthFemaleGenetic LinkageHumansLikelihood FunctionsMaleModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodPedigreeGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID15986318
PMCPMC1224526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.