Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22189469›Full record

ArticleHuman heredity2011

Using parametric multipoint lods and mods for linkage analysis requires a shift in statistical thinking.

Susan E Hodge, Zeynep Baskurt, Lisa J Strug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human heredity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Susan E HodgeDivision of Epidemiology, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Zeynep Baskurt
Lisa J Strug

Funding

PSYCHIATRIC GENETICS AND FAMILY STUDIES--ROBUST METHODSR01MH048858 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI HODGE, SUSAN E. · 1992 to 2010
$1.5M
Development of "Evidential" Methodology for the Analysis of Genetic DataR03HG004314 · NHGRI · HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHLDRN (TORONTO) · PI STRUG, LISA JOANNA · 2008 to 2009
$124k
NHGRI NIH HHS HG004314NHGRI NIH HHS R03 HG004314NIMH NIH HHS MH-48858NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH048858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multipoint (MP) linkage analysis represents a valuable tool for whole-genome studies but suffers from the disadvantage that its probability distribution is unknown and varies as a function of marker information and density, genetic model, number and structure of pedigrees, and the affection status distribution [Xing and Elston: Genet Epidemiol 2006;30:447-458; Hodge et al.: Genet Epidemiol 2008;32:800-815]. This implies that the MP significance criterion can differ for each marker and each dataset, and this fact makes planning and evaluation of MP linkage studies difficult. One way to circumvent this difficulty is to use simulations or permutation testing. Another approach is to use an alternative statistical paradigm to assess the statistical evidence for linkage, one that does not require computation of a p value. Here we show how to use the evidential statistical paradigm for planning, conducting, and interpreting MP linkage studies when the disease model is known (lod analysis) or unknown (mod analysis). As a key feature, the evidential paradigm decouples uncertainty (i.e. error probabilities) from statistical evidence. In the planning stage, the user calculates error probabilities, as functions of one's design choices (sample size, choice of alternative hypothesis, choice of likelihood ratio (LR) criterion k) in order to ensure a reliable study design. In the data analysis stage one no longer pays attention to those error probabilities. In this stage, one calculates the LR for two simple hypotheses (i.e. trait locus is unlinked vs. trait locus is located at a particular position) as a function of the parameter of interest (position). The LR directly measures the strength of evidence for linkage in a given data set and remains completely divorced from the error probabilities calculated in the planning stage. An important consequence of this procedure is that one can use the same criterion k for all analyses. This contrasts with the situation described above, in which the value one uses to conclude significance may differ for each marker and each dataset in order to accommodate a fixed test size, α. In this study we accomplish two goals that lead to a general algorithm for conducting evidential MP linkage studies. (1) We provide two theoretical results that translate into guidelines for investigators conducting evidential MP linkage: (a) Comparing mods to lods, error rates (including probabilities of weak evidence) are generally higher for mods when the null hypothesis is true, but lower for mods in the presence of true linkage. Royall [J Am Stat Assoc 2000;95:760-780] has shown that errors based on lods are bounded and generally small. Therefore when the true disease model is unknown and one chooses to use mods, one needs to control misleading evidence rates only under the null hypothesis; (b) for any given pair of contiguous marker loci, error rates under the null are greatest at the midpoint between the markers spaced furthest apart, which provides an obvious simple alternative hypothesis to specify for planning MP linkage studies. (2) We demonstrate through extensive simulation that this evidential approach can yield low error rates under the null and alternative hypotheses for both lods and mods, despite the fact that mod scores are not true LRs. Using these results we provide a coherent approach to implement a MP linkage study using the evidential paradigm.

Indexed as

Genetic LinkageLod ScoreModels, GeneticComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID22189469
PMCPMC3267993

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.