Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27245422›Full record

ArticleHeredity2016

A powerful test of independent assortment that determines genome-wide significance quickly and accurately.

W C L Stewart, V R Hager

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

W C L StewartNationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
V R HagerNationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the analysis of DNA sequences on related individuals, most methods strive to incorporate as much information as possible, with little or no attention paid to the issue of statistical significance. For example, a modern workstation can easily handle the computations needed to perform a large-scale genome-wide inheritance-by-descent (IBD) scan, but accurate assessment of the significance of that scan is often hindered by inaccurate approximations and computationally intensive simulation. To address these issues, we developed gLOD-a test of co-segregation that, for large samples, models chromosome-specific IBD statistics as a collection of stationary Gaussian processes. With this simple model, the parametric bootstrap yields an accurate and rapid assessment of significance-the genome-wide corrected P-value. Furthermore, we show that (i) under the null hypothesis, the limiting distribution of the gLOD is the standard Gumbel distribution; (ii) our parametric bootstrap simulator is approximately 40 000 times faster than gene-dropping methods, and it is more powerful than methods that approximate the adjusted P-value; and, (iii) the gLOD has the same statistical power as the widely used maximum Kong and Cox LOD. Thus, our approach gives researchers the ability to determine quickly and accurately the significance of most large-scale IBD scans, which may contain multiple traits, thousands of families and tens of thousands of DNA sequences.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, GeneticGenomicsHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID27245422
PMCPMC4949729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.