ArticleBMC genetics2005
Comparing strategies for association mapping in samples with related individuals.
Article in BMC genetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- High prevalence of chitotriosidase deficiency in Peruvian Amerindians exposed to chitin-bearing food and enteroparasites.Carbohydrate polymers · 2014Article
- Effective sample size: Quick estimation of the effect of related samples in genetic case-control association analyses.Computational biology and chemistry · 2011Article
- Microsatellites and SNPs linkage analysis in a Sardinian genetic isolate confirms several essential hypertension loci previously identified in different populations.BMC medical genetics · 2009Article
- High differentiation among eight villages in a secluded area of Sardinia revealed by genome-wide high density SNPs analysis.PloS one · 2009Article
- Case-control studies with affected sibships.BMC proceedings · 2007Article
- Detection of susceptibility loci by genome-wide linkage analysis.BMC genetics · 2005Article
- Modeling the effect of a genetic factor for a complex trait in a simulated population.BMC genetics · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, different strategies to test for association in samples with related individuals designed for linkage studies are compared. Because no independent controls are available, a family-based association test and case-control tests corrected for the presence of related individuals in which unaffected relatives are used as controls were tested. When unrelated controls are available, additional strategies including selection of a single case per family considering either all families or a subset of linked families, are also considered. Analyses are performed on the simulated dataset, blind to the answers. The case-control test corrected for the presence of related individuals is the most powerful strategy to detect three loci associated with the disease under study. Using a correction factor for the case-control test performed conditional on the marker information rather than unconditional does not impact the power significantly.
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.