These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17654599)

  • 1. Detecting association using epistatic information.
    Chapman J; Clayton D
    Genet Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 31(8):894-909. PubMed ID: 17654599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Detecting purely epistatic multi-locus interactions by an omnibus permutation test on ensembles of two-locus analyses.
    Wongseree W; Assawamakin A; Piroonratana T; Sinsomros S; Limwongse C; Chaiyaratana N
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2009 Sep; 10():294. PubMed ID: 19761607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. IndOR: a new statistical procedure to test for SNP-SNP epistasis in genome-wide association studies.
    Emily M
    Stat Med; 2012 Sep; 31(21):2359-73. PubMed ID: 22711278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Enabling personal genomics with an explicit test of epistasis.
    Greene CS; Himmelstein DS; Nelson HH; Kelsey KT; Williams SM; Andrew AS; Karagas MR; Moore JH
    Pac Symp Biocomput; 2010; ():327-36. PubMed ID: 19908385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluating the ability of tree-based methods and logistic regression for the detection of SNP-SNP interaction.
    García-Magariños M; López-de-Ullibarri I; Cao R; Salas A
    Ann Hum Genet; 2009 May; 73(Pt 3):360-9. PubMed ID: 19291098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Asymptotic distribution for epistatic tests in case-control studies.
    Liu T; Thalamuthu A; Liu JJ; Chen C; Wang Z; Wu R
    Genomics; 2011 Aug; 98(2):145-51. PubMed ID: 21620949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detailed analysis of the relative power of direct and indirect association studies and the implications for their interpretation.
    Moskvina V; O'Donovan MC
    Hum Hered; 2007; 64(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 17483598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Epistasis in quantitative trait locus linkage analysis: interaction or main effect?
    Purcell S; Sham PC
    Behav Genet; 2004 Mar; 34(2):143-52. PubMed ID: 14755179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Identifying genetic interactions in genome-wide data using Bayesian networks.
    Jiang X; Barmada MM; Visweswaran S
    Genet Epidemiol; 2010 Sep; 34(6):575-81. PubMed ID: 20568290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Omnibus testing approach for gene-based gene-gene interaction.
    Hébert F; Causeur D; Emily M
    Stat Med; 2022 Jul; 41(15):2854-2878. PubMed ID: 35338506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Leveraging local ancestry to detect gene-gene interactions in genome-wide data.
    Aschard H; Gusev A; Brown R; Pasaniuc B
    BMC Genet; 2015 Oct; 16():124. PubMed ID: 26498930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Are Interactions between cis-Regulatory Variants Evidence for Biological Epistasis or Statistical Artifacts?
    Fish AE; Capra JA; Bush WS
    Am J Hum Genet; 2016 Oct; 99(4):817-830. PubMed ID: 27640306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Detecting genetic interactions in pathway-based genome-wide association studies.
    Huang A; Martin ER; Vance JM; Cai X
    Genet Epidemiol; 2014 May; 38(4):300-9. PubMed ID: 24719383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. One degree of freedom for dominance in indirect association studies.
    Chapman J; Clayton D
    Genet Epidemiol; 2007 Apr; 31(3):261-71. PubMed ID: 17266117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A model-free approach for detecting interactions in genetic association studies.
    Li J; Dan J; Li C; Wu R
    Brief Bioinform; 2014 Nov; 15(6):1057-68. PubMed ID: 24273216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Statistical power for detecting epistasis QTL effects under the F-2 design.
    Mao Y; Da Y
    Genet Sel Evol; 2005; 37(2):129-50. PubMed ID: 16194521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using Linkage Analysis to Detect Gene-Gene Interactions. 2. Improved Reliability and Extension to More-Complex Models.
    Hodge SE; Hager VR; Greenberg DA
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(1):e0146240. PubMed ID: 26752287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eigen-Epistasis for detecting gene-gene interactions.
    Stanislas V; Dalmasso C; Ambroise C
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):54. PubMed ID: 28114904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Single-variant and multi-variant trend tests for genetic association with next-generation sequencing that are robust to sequencing error.
    Kim W; Londono D; Zhou L; Xing J; Nato AQ; Musolf A; Matise TC; Finch SJ; Gordon D
    Hum Hered; 2012; 74(3-4):172-83. PubMed ID: 23594495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Epistatic Gene-Based Interaction Analyses for Glaucoma in eMERGE and NEIGHBOR Consortium.
    Verma SS; Cooke Bailey JN; Lucas A; Bradford Y; Linneman JG; Hauser MA; Pasquale LR; Peissig PL; Brilliant MH; McCarty CA; Haines JL; Wiggs JL; Vrabec TR; Tromp G; Ritchie MD; ;
    PLoS Genet; 2016 Sep; 12(9):e1006186. PubMed ID: 27623284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.