ArticleCroatian medical journal2013
The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing - an in silico population study.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a Custom SNP Panel for Identifying and Rectifying of Misjudged Paternity in Deficiency Cases.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the potential of false inclusion of a close genetic relative in paternity testing by using computer generated families.
methods10000 computer-simulated families over three generations were generated based on genotypes using 15 short tandem repeat loci. These data were used in assessing the probability of inclusion or exclusion of paternity when the father is actually a sibling, grandparent, uncle, half sibling, cousin, or a random male. Further, we considered a duo case where the mother's DNA type was not available and a trio case including the mother's profile.
resultsThe data showed that the duo scenario had the highest and lowest false inclusion rates when considering a sibling (19.03 ± 0.77%) and a cousin (0.51 ± 0.14%) as the father, respectively; and the rate when considering a random male was much lower (0.04 ± 0.04%). The situation altered slightly with a trio case where the highest rate (0.56 ± 0.15%) occurred when a paternal uncle was considered as the father, and the lowest rate (0.03 ± 0.03%) occurred when a cousin was considered as the father. We also report on the distribution of the numbers for non-conformity (non-matching loci) where the father is a close genetic relative.
conclusionsThe results highlight the risk of false inclusion in parentage testing. These data provide a valuable reference when incorporating either a mutation in the father's DNA type or if a close relative is included as being the father; particularly when there are varying numbers of non-matching loci.
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.