ArticleHuman heredity2008
Practical considerations for dividing data into subsets prior to PPL analysis.
Article in Human heredity, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Common genetic risk factors in ASD and ADHD co-occurring families.Human genetics · 2023Article
- A genome-wide linkage study of autism spectrum disorder and the broad autism phenotype in extended pedigrees.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2018Article
- Revisiting schizophrenia linkage data in the NIMH Repository: reanalysis of regularized data across multiple studies.The American journal of psychiatry · 2014Article
- A molecular genetic study of autism and related phenotypes in extended pedigrees.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2013Article
- Novel method for combined linkage and genome-wide association analysis finds evidence of distinct genetic architecture for two subtypes of autism.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2011Article
- KELVIN: a software package for rigorous measurement of statistical evidence in human genetics.Human heredity · 2011Article
- Fast and accurate calculation of a computationally intensive statistic for mapping disease genes.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe PPL, a class of statistics for complex trait genetic mapping in humans, utilizes Bayesian sequential updating to accumulate evidence for or against linkage across potentially heterogeneous data (sub)sets. Here, we systematically explore the relative efficacy of alternative subsetting approaches for purposes of PPL calculation.
methodsWe simulated genotypes for three pedigree sets (sib pairs; 2-3 generations; >or=4 generations) based on families from an ongoing study. For each pedigree set, 100 replicates were generated under different levels of heterogeneity (1000 under 'no linkage'). Within each replicate, updating was performed across subsets defined randomly (RAND2, RAND4), by true (TRUE) linkage status, with a realistic (REAL) classification, by individual pedigree (PED), or without any subsetting (NONE).
resultsUnder 'linkage', REAL yields larger PPLs compared to NONE, RAND2, RAND4, or PED. Under 'no linkage', RAND2, RAND4 and PED yield PPLs close to NONE.
conclusionsWe have examined the impact of different subsetting strategies on the sampling behavior of the PPL. Our results underscore the utility of finding variables that can help delineate more homogeneous data subsets and demonstrate that, once such variables are found, sequential updating can be highly beneficial in the presence of appreciable heterogeneity at a linked locus, without inflation at an unlinked locus.
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.