Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1539596›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics1992

Comparison of a multipoint identity-by-descent method with parametric multipoint linkage analysis for mapping quantitative traits.

D E Goldgar, R S Oniki

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

D E GoldgarDepartment of Medical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R S Oniki

Funding

GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY OF CANCER AND PREDISPOSING LESIONSP01CA048711 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SKOLNICK, MARK H · 1990 to 1994
–
LINKAGE ANALYSIS AND MULTIPLE LOCIR01CA036362 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SKOLNICK, MARK · 1987 to 1991
–
LINKAGE ANALYSIS AND MULTIPLE LOCIR23CA036362 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI BISHOP, DAVID T · 1985 to 1986
–
NCI NIH HHS CA 36362NCI NIH HHS CA 48711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We previously developed a method of partitioning genetic variance of a quantitative trait to loci in specific chromosomal regions. In this paper, we compare this method--multipoint IBD (identical by descent) method (MIM)--with parametric multipoint linkage analysis (MLINK). A simulation study was performed comparing the methods for the major-locus, mixed, and two-locus models. The criterion for comparisons between MIM and MLINK was the average lod score from multiple replicates of simulated data sets. The effect of gene frequency, dominance, model misspecification, marker spacing, and informativeness are also considered in a smaller set of simulations. Within the context of the models examined, the MIM approach was found to be comparable in power with parametric multipoint linkage analysis when (a) parental data are unknown, (b) the effect of the major locus is small and there is additional genetic variation, or (c) the parameters of the major-locus model are misspecified. The performance of the MIM method relative to MLINK was markedly lower when the allele frequency at the trait locus was .2 versus .5, particularly for the case when parental data were assumed to be known. Dominance at the trait major locus, as well as marker spacing and heterozygosity, did not appear to have a large effect on the ELOD comparisons.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticChromosome MappingComputer SimulationConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicGene FrequencyGenes, DominantGenetic LinkageGenetic MarkersGenetic VariationHumansLikelihood FunctionsLod ScoreParentsGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID1539596
PMCPMC1684304

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.