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.
137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7272417)
1. Optimal sampling for pedigree analysis: sequential schemes for sibships. Thompson EA Biometrics; 1981 Jun; 37(2):313-25. PubMed ID: 7272417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Ascertainment correction for Markov chain Monte Carlo segregation and linkage analysis of a quantitative trait. Ma J; Amos CI; Warwick Daw E Genet Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 31(6):594-604. PubMed ID: 17487893 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A note on Cannings and Thompson's sequential sampling scheme for pedigrees. Hodge SE; Boehnke M Am J Hum Genet; 1986 Aug; 39(2):274-81. PubMed ID: 3752090 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A bivariate problem in human genetics: ascertainment of families through a correlated trait. Dawson DV; Elston RC Am J Med Genet; 1984 Jul; 18(3):435-48. PubMed ID: 6476005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Ascertainment models incorporating effects of variable age of onset. Dawson DV Am J Med Genet; 1994 Dec; 53(4):340-7. PubMed ID: 7864043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of sequential sampling rules and ascertainment correction on genetic analysis. Skolnick MH; Bishop DT; Thomas A Prog Clin Biol Res; 1989; 329():177-82. PubMed ID: 2622950 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. [Planning of sampling for linkage analysis. Sample size and sampling method]. Aksenovich TI; Ginzburg EKh Genetika; 1993 Sep; 29(9):1544-53. PubMed ID: 8276222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Correcting for ascertainment bias of relative-risk estimates obtained using affected-sib-pair linkage data. Cordell HJ; Olson JM Genet Epidemiol; 2000 Apr; 18(4):307-21. PubMed ID: 10797591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Optimal weighting scheme for affected sib-pair analysis of sibship data. Sham PC; Zhao JH; Curtis D Ann Hum Genet; 1997 Jan; 61(Pt 1):61-9. PubMed ID: 9066928 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Investigating the numerical effects of ascertainment bias in linkage analysis: development of methods and preliminary results. Slager SL; Vieland VJ Genet Epidemiol; 1997; 14(6):1119-24. PubMed ID: 9433634 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of four sib-pair linkage methods for analyzing sibships with more than two affecteds: interest of the binomial maximum likelihood approach. Abel L; Alcais A; Mallet A Genet Epidemiol; 1998; 15(4):371-90. PubMed ID: 9671987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Stoppage: an issue for segregation analysis. Slager SL; Foroud T; Haghighi F; Spence MA; Hodge SE Genet Epidemiol; 2001 Apr; 20(3):328-39. PubMed ID: 11255242 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Possibility of the current segregation analysis to discriminate between monogenic and multifactorial types of inheritance of traits. The effect of the structure of family data on model robustness and power of the analysis]. Koroleva AG; Ageev SV Genetika; 1988 Oct; 24(10):1889-93. PubMed ID: 3234747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Sampling considerations in the design and analysis of family studies. Elston RC; Bonney GE Prog Clin Biol Res; 1984; 147():349-71. PubMed ID: 6377317 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Censored survival models for genetic epidemiology: a Gibbs sampling approach. Gauderman WJ; Thomas DC Genet Epidemiol; 1994; 11(2):171-88. PubMed ID: 8013897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]