Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39416483›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2024

Comparing performances of different statistical models and multiple threshold methods in a nested association mapping population of wheat.

Karansher S Sandhu, Adrienne B Burke, Lance F Merrick, Michael O Pumphrey, Arron H Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Karansher S SandhuDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.
Adrienne B BurkeDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.
Lance F MerrickDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.
Michael O PumphreyDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.
Arron H CarterDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nested association mapping (NAM) populations emerged as a multi-parental strategy that combines the high statistical power of biparental linkage mapping with greater allelic richness of association mapping. Several statistical models have been developed for marker-trait associations (MTAs) in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which ranges from simple to increasingly complex models. These statistical models vary in their performance for detecting real association with the avoidance of false positives and false negatives. Furthermore, significant threshold methods play an equally important role for controlling spurious associations. In this study, we compared the performance of seven different statistical models ranging from single to multi-locus models on eight different simulated traits with varied genetic architecture for a NAM population of spring wheat (

Indexed as

false positives and false negativesgenome-wide association studiesnested association mappingsingle and multi-locus modelsspectral reflectance indiceswheat

Identifiers

PMID39416483
PMCPMC11482037

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.