ArticleCroatian medical journal2012
A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kinship analysis: assessment of related vs unrelated based on defined pedigrees.International journal of legal medicine · 2016Article
- The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing - an in silico population study.Croatian medical journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo use a virtually simulated population, generated from published allele frequencies based on 15 short tandem repeats (STR), to evaluate the efficacy of trio sibship testing and sibling assignment for forensic purposes.
methodsVirtual populations were generated using 15 STR loci to create a large number of related and unrelated genotypes (10,000 trio combinations). Using these virtual populations, the probability of related and unrelated profiles can be compared to determine the chance of inclusions of being siblings if they are true siblings and the chance of inclusion if they are unrelated. Two specific relationships were tested - two reference siblings were compared to a third true sibling (3S trio, sibling trio) and two reference siblings were compared to an unrelated individual (2S1U trio, non-sibling trio).
resultsWhen the likelihood ratio was greater than 1, 99.87% of siblings in the 3S trio population were considered as siblings (sensitivity); 99.88% of non-siblings in the 2S1U trio population were considered as non-siblings (specificity); 99.9% of both populations were identified correctly as siblings and non-siblings; and the accuracy of the test was 99.88%.
conclusionsThe high sensitivity and specificity figures when using two known siblings compared to a putative sibling are significantly greater than when using only one known relative. The data also support the use of increasing number of loci allowing for greater confidence in genetic identification. The system established in this study could be used as the model for evaluating and simulating the cases with multiple relatives.
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.