ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics1998
Statistical evaluation of age-at-onset anticipation: a new test and evaluation of its behavior in realistic applications.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in the aggressiveness of familial versus sporadic non-medullary thyroid cancer: An unresolved controversy.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Epilepsy in families: Age at onset is a familial trait, independent of syndrome.Annals of neurology · 2019Article
- Ascertainment bias causes false signal of anticipation in genetic prion disease.American journal of human genetics · 2014Article
- A review of statistical methods for testing genetic anticipation: looking for an answer in Lynch syndrome.Genetic epidemiology · 2010Review
- Elevated risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and other indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas among relatives of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Haematologica · 2009Article
- Genetics- and immune-related factors in the pathogenesis of lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/ Waldenström's macroglobulinemia.Clinical lymphoma & myeloma · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The discovery that microsatellite repeat expansions can cause clinical disease has fostered renewed interest in testing for age-at-onset anticipation (AOA). A commonly used procedure is to sample affected parent-child pairs (APCPs) from available data sets and to test for a difference in mean age at onset between the parents and the children. However, standard statistical methods fail to take into account the right truncation of both the parent and child age-at-onset distributions under this design, with the result that type I error rates can be inflated substantially. Previously, we had introduced a new test, based on the correct, bivariate right-truncated, age-at-onset distribution. We showed that this test has the correct type I error rate for random APCPs, even for quite small samples. However, in that paper, we did not consider two key statistical complications that arise when the test is applied to realistic data. First, affected pairs usually are sampled from pedigrees preferentially selected for the presence of multiple affected individuals. In this paper, we show that this will tend to inflate the type I error rate of the test. Second, we consider the appropriate probability model under the alternative hypothesis of true AOA due to an expanding microsatellite mechanism, and we show that there is good reason to believe that the power to detect AOA may be quite small, even for substantial effect sizes. When the type I error rate of the test is high relative to the power, interpretation of test results becomes problematic. We conclude that, in many applications, AOA tests based on APCPs may not yield meaningful results.
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.