Literature DB >> 3177379

Conditioning on subsets of the data: applications to ascertainment and other genetic problems.

S E Hodge1.   

Abstract

I here consider the question of when to formulate a likelihood over the whole data set, as opposed to conditioning the likelihood on subsets of the data (i.e., joint vs. conditional likelihoods). I show that when certain conditions are met, these two likelihoods are guaranteed to be equivalent, and thus that it is generally preferable to condition on subsets, since that likelihood is mathematically and computationally simpler. However, I show that when these conditions are not met, conditioning on subsets of the data is equivalent to introducing additional df into our genetic model, df that we may not have been aware of. I discuss the implications of these facts for ascertainment corrections and other genetic problems.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3177379      PMCID: PMC1715504     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  7 in total

1.  Genetic tests under incomplete ascertainment.

Authors:  N E MORTON
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1959-03       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  A resolution of the ascertainment sampling problem. II. Generalizations and numerical results.

Authors:  N C Shute; W J Ewens
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  A resolution of the ascertainment sampling problem. I. Theory.

Authors:  W J Ewens; N C Shute
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 1.570

4.  The effect of proband designation on segregation analysis.

Authors:  D A Greenberg
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Family-size distribution and Ewens' equivalence theorem.

Authors:  S E Hodge
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Estimating parameters of the family-size distribution in ascertainment sampling schemes: numerical results.

Authors:  W J Ewens; B Asaba
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  The effects of a known family-size distribution on the estimation of genetic parameters.

Authors:  W J Ewens; S E Hodge; F H Ping
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 11.025

  7 in total
  6 in total

1.  Ascertainment adjustment: where does it take us?

Authors:  P R Burton; L J Palmer; K Jacobs; K J Keen; J M Olson; R C Elston
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2000-11-14       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Population-Calibrated Gene Characterization: Estimating Age at Onset Distributions Associated With Cancer Genes.

Authors:  Edwin S Iversen; Sining Chen
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.033

3.  A pseudolikelihood approach to correcting for ascertainment bias in family studies.

Authors:  D Rabinowitz
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  The problem of ascertainment for linkage analysis.

Authors:  V J Vieland; S E Hodge
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  Inherent intractability of the ascertainment problem for pedigree data: a general likelihood framework.

Authors:  V J Vieland; S E Hodge
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Penetrance of HNPCC-related cancers in a retrolective cohort of 12 large Newfoundland families carrying a MSH2 founder mutation: an evaluation using modified segregation models.

Authors:  Karen A Kopciuk; Yun-Hee Choi; Elena Parkhomenko; Patrick Parfrey; John McLaughlin; Jane Green; Laurent Briollais
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 2.857

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.