ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2015
About the power of biostatistics in sibling analysis-comparison of empirical and simulated data.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel approach of kinship determination based on the physical length of genetically shared regions of chromosomes.Genes & genomics · 2024Article
- The limitations of kinship determinations using STR data in ill-defined populations.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
- Letter to the Editor: comments on biostatistical power of sibling analysis by STR markers.International journal of legal medicine · 2016Article
- Kinship analysis: assessment of related vs unrelated based on defined pedigrees.International journal of legal medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The determination of potential sibship is a common task in routine kinship analysis, but often the putative parents are not available for analysis anymore. Then, a sibling analysis has to be conducted investigating only the potential siblings, thus reducing the power of the conclusion. In an attempt to determine meaningfulness of biostatistical calculations, 346 dizygotic twin pairs, 30 confirmed half siblings, and 112 unrelated people (to generate 6216 pair comparisons) were studied, all genetically typed using at least the Powerplex® 16 STRs. From every pair, the probabilities for a full sibship (identical parents) and half sibship (different fathers) were calculated using a commercially available computer program. Additionally, we simulated marker data for one million pairs of full sibs, half sibs, and unrelated persons each. Ninety-five percent of full sibling pairs demonstrated a likelihood ratio (LR) > 9 (W-value > 90 %) and less than 4% of these showed a LR < 3 (W-value < 75%) for full sibship after analysis of 15 STRs. The results for half siblings are less unambiguous. Here, only 57% achieved a LR > 9 and 23% a LR < 3. Regarding the unrelated pairs, more than 90% had a LR < 1/9 and only 2% reached a LR > 9. All in all, our results show that 15 to 20 STRs have sufficient power for analyses in kinship. Moreover, our data provide a statistical basis for the determination of the information content of a LR/W-value in a sibship case. Investigating an identical number of full siblings and unrelated pairs, it could be shown that 92% of pairs with a LR > 9 for full sibship probability really are full siblings. So, setting a cutoff level for full sibship at LR > 9, less than 10% of pairs will be wrongly assumed as full siblings even though they are unrelated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26292643What 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.