ArticleHuman heredity2011
An improved delta-centralization method for population stratification.
Article in Human heredity, 2011. 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.
- Analysis of historical selection in winter wheat.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dadd et al. [Hum Hered 2010;69:285-294] recently criticized our delta-centralization (DC) method of controlling for population stratification (PS) and concluded that DC does not work. To explore our method, the authors simulated data under the Balding-Nichols (BN) model, which is more general than the model we had used in our simulations. They determined that the DC method underestimated the PS parameter (δ) and inflated the type I error rates when applied to BN-simulated data, and from this they concluded that the DC method is invalid. However, we argue that this conclusion is premature. In this paper, we (1) show why δ is underestimated and type I error rates are inflated when BN-simulated data are used, and (2) present a simple adjustment to DC that works reasonably well for data from both kinds of simulations. We also show that the adjusted DC method has appropriate power under a range of scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.