PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8013885

Combining two-point genetic linkage analyses using mapping functions.

Abstract

A likelihood ratio statistic is proposed for combining two-point genetic linkage analyses when the two-point analyses are between a trait and a well-defined map of markers. It is assumed that the two-point analyses are independent, as in the case of choosing only the most informative marker per family. The asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic is derived under the null hypothesis of no linkage of the trait with a map of 2 markers, with intermarker genetic distance delta. This distribution is shown to be a chi-square mixture distribution with mixing probability depending on delta and the assumed mapping function. We use this asymptotic result to approximate the distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic for the more general case of more than 2 markers. Simulation results indicate that this may be reasonable. Power is evaluated by simulations and results indicate that this approach, which constrains the intermarker distances to their known values, tends to be more powerful than other methods proposed in the literature.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D J Schaid, R C Elston. 1994. Combining two-point genetic linkage analyses using mapping functions.. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.1370110102

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias