Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39177736›Full record

ArticleBehavior genetics2024

Calculating Within-Pair Difference Scores in the Co-twin Control Design. Effects of Alternative Strategies.

Juan J Madrid-Valero, Brad Verhulst, José A López-López, Juan R Ordoñana

Abstract readTwin Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Juan J Madrid-ValeroDepartment of Human Anatomy and Psychobiology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. juanjose.madrid1@um.es.ORCID 0000-0002-3450-1159
Brad VerhulstDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
José A López-LópezMurcia Institute of Biomedical Research, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.
Juan R OrdoñanaDepartment of Human Anatomy and Psychobiology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. ordonana@um.es.ORCID 0000-0001-7779-6017

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades - Spain (RTI2018-095185-B-I00) co-funded by European Regional Development Fund (FEDER). RTI2018-095185-B-I00
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, GeneticComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalResearch DesignTwinsTwins, DizygoticTwins, MonozygoticTwin Studies as TopicCausalityCo-twin studyStatisticsTwin studies

Identifiers

PMID39177736
PMCPMC11371853

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.