Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9345087›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics1997

Allele-sharing models: LOD scores and accurate linkage tests.

A Kong, N J Cox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 393 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
393citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

393 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. WDR12 and HIVEP3 are contributors to cognitive preservation in Amish SuperAgers.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

333 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

A KongDepartment of Statistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, US. kong@galton.uchicago.edu
N J Cox

Funding

TRANSGENIC COREP60DK020595 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI BELL, GRAEME I · 1985 to 2012
$25.5M
Pilot and Feasibility ProgramP30DK020595 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Matthew J Brady · 2013 to 2026
$20.9M
NONINSULIN-DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS GENES IN HUMANSR01DK047481 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SPIELMAN, RICHARD S · 1993 to 1997
–
METHODS FOR ANALYZING PEDIGREE DATA WITH MANY PARAMETERSR01GM046800 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI KONG, C AUGUSTINE · 1992 to 1996
–
NIDDK NIH HHS DK-20595NIDDK NIH HHS DK-47481NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM46800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Starting with a test statistic for linkage analysis based on allele sharing, we propose an associated one-parameter model. Under general missing-data patterns, this model allows exact calculation of likelihood ratios and LOD scores and has been implemented by a simple modification of existing software. Most important, accurate linkage tests can be performed. Using an example, we show that some previously suggested approaches to handling less than perfectly informative data can be unacceptably conservative. Situations in which this model may not perform well are discussed, and an alternative model that requires additional computations is suggested.

Indexed as

AllelesLod ScoreModels, GeneticChromosomes, Human, Pair 2Computer SimulationDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Genetic LinkageGenetic MarkersHumansMathematicsSoftwareGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID9345087
PMCPMC1716027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.