ArticleBehavior genetics2024
Calculating Within-Pair Difference Scores in the Co-twin Control Design. Effects of Alternative Strategies.
Article in Behavior genetics, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Co-twin studies are an elegant and powerful design that allows controlling for the effect of confounding variables, including genetic and a range of environmental factors. There are several approaches to carry out this design. One of the methods commonly used, when contrasting continuous variables, is to calculate difference scores between members of a twin pair on two associated variables, in order to analyse the covariation of such differences. However, information regarding whether and how the different ways of estimating within-pair difference scores may impact the results is scant. This study aimed to compare the results obtained by different methods of data transformation when performing a co-twin study and test how the magnitude of the association changes using each of those approaches. Data was simulated using a direction of causation model and by fixing the effect size of causal path to low, medium, and high values. Within-pair difference scores were calculated as relative scores for diverse within-pair ordering conditions or absolute scores. Pearson's correlations using relative difference scores vary across the established scenarios (how twins were ordered within pairs) and these discrepancies become larger as the within-twin correlation increases. Absolute difference scores tended to produce the lowest correlation in every condition. Our results show that both using absolute difference scores or ordering twins within pairs, may produce an artificial decrease in the magnitude of the studied association, obscuring the ability to detect patterns compatible with causation, which could lead to discrepancies across studies and erroneous conclusions.
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.