BACKGROUND: The choices of study design and statistical approach for mapping a quantitative trait (QT) are of great importance. Larger sibships and a study design based upon phenotypically extreme siblings can be expected to have a greater statistical power. On the other hand, selected samples and/or deviation from normality can influence the robustness and power. Unfortunately, the effects of violation of multivariate normality assumptions and/or selected samples are only known for a limited number of methods. Some recommendations are available in the literature, but an extensive comparison of robustness and power under several different conditions is lacking. METHODS: We compared eight freely available and commonly applied QT mapping methods in a Monte-Carlo simulation study under 36 different models and study designs (three genetic models, three selection schemes, two family structures and the possible effect of deviation from normality). RESULTS: Empirical type I error fractions and empirical power are presented and explained as a whole and for each method separately, followed by a thorough discussion. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this extensive comparison could serve as a valuable source for the choice of the study design and the statistical approach for mapping a QT. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: The choices of study design and statistical approach for mapping a quantitative trait (QT) are of great importance. Larger sibships and a study design based upon phenotypically extreme siblings can be expected to have a greater statistical power. On the other hand, selected samples and/or deviation from normality can influence the robustness and power. Unfortunately, the effects of violation of multivariate normality assumptions and/or selected samples are only known for a limited number of methods. Some recommendations are available in the literature, but an extensive comparison of robustness and power under several different conditions is lacking. METHODS: We compared eight freely available and commonly applied QT mapping methods in a Monte-Carlo simulation study under 36 different models and study designs (three genetic models, three selection schemes, two family structures and the possible effect of deviation from normality). RESULTS:Empirical type I error fractions and empirical power are presented and explained as a whole and for each method separately, followed by a thorough discussion. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this extensive comparison could serve as a valuable source for the choice of the study design and the statistical approach for mapping a QT. Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Elisabeth A Rosenthal; James Ronald; Joseph Rothstein; Ramakrishnan Rajagopalan; Jane Ranchalis; G Wolfbauer; John J Albers; John D Brunzell; Arno G Motulsky; Mark J Rieder; Deborah A Nickerson; Ellen M Wijsman; Gail P Jarvik Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Wei Zhao; Elizabeth E Marchani; Charles Y K Cheung; Ellen J Steinbart; Gerard D Schellenberg; Thomas D Bird; Ellen M Wijsman Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: D T Truong; L D Shriberg; S D Smith; K L Chapman; A R Scheer-Cohen; M M C DeMille; A K Adams; A Q Nato; E M Wijsman; J D Eicher; J R Gruen Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Beate Peter; Ellen M Wijsman; Alejandro Q Nato; Mark M Matsushita; Kathy L Chapman; Ian B Stanaway; John Wolff; Kaori Oda; Virginia B Gabo; Wendy H Raskind Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 3.240