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 *

299 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26752287)

  • 21. Phenocopies versus genetic heterogeneity: can we use phenocopy frequencies in linkage analysis to compensate for heterogeneity?
    Durner M; Greenberg DA; Hodge SE
    Hum Hered; 1996; 46(5):265-73. PubMed ID: 8854142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. SVM-based generalized multifactor dimensionality reduction approaches for detecting gene-gene interactions in family studies.
    Fang YH; Chiu YF
    Genet Epidemiol; 2012 Feb; 36(2):88-98. PubMed ID: 22851472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accounting for epistasis in linkage analysis of general pedigrees.
    Sung YJ; Wijsman EM
    Hum Hered; 2007; 63(2):144-52. PubMed ID: 17283443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Comparative analysis of methods for detecting interacting loci.
    Chen L; Yu G; Langefeld CD; Miller DJ; Guy RT; Raghuram J; Yuan X; Herrington DM; Wang Y
    BMC Genomics; 2011 Jul; 12():344. PubMed ID: 21729295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A mixed two-stage method for detecting interactions in genomewide association studies.
    Zuo Y; Kang G
    J Theor Biol; 2010 Feb; 262(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 19896954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Detection of phenotype modifier genes using two-locus linkage analysis in complex disorders such as major psychosis.
    Bureau A; Croteau J; Mérette C; Fournier A; Chagnon YC; Roy MA; Maziade M
    Hum Hered; 2012; 73(4):195-207. PubMed ID: 22907187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Restrictions on components of variance for epistatic models.
    Tiwari HK; Elston RC
    Theor Popul Biol; 1998 Oct; 54(2):161-74. PubMed ID: 9733657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A combinatorial searching method for detecting a set of interacting loci associated with complex traits.
    Sha Q; Zhu X; Zuo Y; Cooper R; Zhang S
    Ann Hum Genet; 2006 Sep; 70(Pt 5):677-92. PubMed ID: 16907712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Epistasis detectably alters correlations between genomic sites in a narrow parameter window.
    Pedruzzi G; Rouzine IM
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(5):e0214036. PubMed ID: 31150393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. AGFAP method: applicability under different ascertainment schemes and a parental contributions test.
    Thomson G
    Genet Epidemiol; 1993; 10(5):289-310. PubMed ID: 8224808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluating the detection ability of a range of epistasis detection methods on simulated data for pure and impure epistatic models.
    Russ D; Williams JA; Cardoso VR; Bravo-Merodio L; Pendleton SC; Aziz F; Acharjee A; Gkoutos GV
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(2):e0263390. PubMed ID: 35180244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Systematic detection of epistatic interactions based on allele pair frequencies.
    Ackermann M; Beyer A
    PLoS Genet; 2012 Feb; 8(2):e1002463. PubMed ID: 22346757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Design considerations in a sib-pair study of linkage for susceptibility loci in cancer.
    Kerber RA; Amos CI; Yeap BY; Finkelstein DM; Thomas DC
    BMC Med Genet; 2008 Jul; 9():64. PubMed ID: 18616822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Inter- and intrafamilial heterogeneity: effective sampling strategies and comparison of analysis methods.
    Durner M; Greenberg DA; Hodge SE
    Am J Hum Genet; 1992 Oct; 51(4):859-70. PubMed ID: 1415227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A novel evolution-based method for detecting gene-gene interactions.
    Rao S; Yuan M; Zuo X; Su W; Zhang F; Huang K; Lin M; Ding Y
    PLoS One; 2011; 6(10):e26435. PubMed ID: 22046286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Identifying susceptibility genes by using joint tests of association and linkage and accounting for epistasis.
    Millstein J; Siegmund KD; Conti DV; Gauderman WJ
    BMC Genet; 2005 Dec; 6 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S147. PubMed ID: 16451607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of information-theoretic to statistical methods for gene-gene interactions in the presence of genetic heterogeneity.
    Sucheston L; Chanda P; Zhang A; Tritchler D; Ramanathan M
    BMC Genomics; 2010 Sep; 11():487. PubMed ID: 20815886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Optimal allele-sharing statistics for genetic mapping using affected relatives.
    McPeek MS
    Genet Epidemiol; 1999; 16(3):225-49. PubMed ID: 10096687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.