Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23226224›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Evaluating methods to correct for population stratification when estimating paternity indexes.

Ulises Toscanini, Manuel Garcia-Magariños, Gabriela Berardi, Thore Egeland, Eduardo Raimondi, Antonio Salas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Ulises ToscaniniPricai-Fundación Favaloro, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. utoscanini@pricai.com.ar
Manuel Garcia-Magariños
Gabriela Berardi
Thore Egeland
Eduardo Raimondi
Antonio Salas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The statistical interpretation of the forensic genetic evidence requires the use of allelic frequency estimates in the reference population for the studied markers. Differences in the genetic make up of the populations can be reflected in statistically different allelic frequency distributions. One can easily figure out that collecting such information for any given population is not always possible. Therefore, alternative approaches are needed in these cases in order to compensate for the lack of information. A number of statistics have been proposed to control for population stratification in paternity testing and forensic casework, Fst correction being the only one recommended by the forensic community. In this study we aimed to evaluate the performance of Fst to correct for population stratification in forensics. By way of simulations, we first tested the dependence of Fst on the relative sizes of the sub-populations, and second, we measured the effect of the Fst corrections on the Paternity Index (PI) values compared to the ones obtained when using the local reference database. The results provide clear-cut evidence that (i) Fst values are strongly dependent on the sampling scheme, and therefore, for most situations it would be almost impossible to estimate real values of Fst; and (ii) Fst corrections might unfairly correct PI values for stratification, suggesting the use of local databases whenever possible to estimate the frequencies of genetic profiles and PI values.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationMicrosatellite RepeatsPaternityArgentinaDNA FingerprintingForensic GeneticsGene FrequencyHumansMalePedigree

Identifiers

PMID23226224
PMCPMC3511507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.