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 *

69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9433626)

  • 21. Efficient use of siblings in testing for linkage and association.
    Rieger RH; Kaplan NL; Weinberg CR
    Genet Epidemiol; 2001 Feb; 20(2):175-91. PubMed ID: 11180445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Empirical significance values for linkage analysis: trait simulation using posterior model distributions from MCMC oligogenic segregation analysis.
    Igo RP; Wijsman EM
    Genet Epidemiol; 2008 Feb; 32(2):119-31. PubMed ID: 17849492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. ASP--a simulation-based power calculator for genetic linkage studies of qualitative traits, using sib-pairs.
    Krawczak M
    Hum Genet; 2001 Dec; 109(6):675-7. PubMed ID: 11810280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Informative-transmission disequilibrium test (i-TDT): combined linkage and association mapping that includes unaffected offspring as well as affected offspring.
    Guo CY; Lunetta KL; DeStefano AL; Ordovas JM; Cupples LA
    Genet Epidemiol; 2007 Feb; 31(2):115-33. PubMed ID: 17123304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Affected sib-pair methods for detecting linkage to dichotomous traits: review of the methodology.
    Holmans P
    Hum Biol; 1998 Dec; 70(6):1025-40. PubMed ID: 9825594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Power comparison of generalizations of the mean test for affected sib pairs in case of incompletely informative markers.
    Knapp M
    Genet Epidemiol; 2006 May; 30(4):314-9. PubMed ID: 16550593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Association of posterior p-values of S.A.G.E. SIBPAL proportion-IBD and Haseman-Elston statistics for ACTHR112.
    Gordon D; Finch SJ; Jacobs AL; Mendell NR; Single RM; Marr TG
    Genet Epidemiol; 1997; 14(6):629-34. PubMed ID: 9433554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The power of two-locus affected sib-pair linkage analysis to detect interacting disease loci.
    Hallgrímsdóttir IB; Speed TP
    Genet Epidemiol; 2008 Jan; 32(1):84-8. PubMed ID: 17654608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Limitations of stratifying sib-pair data in common disease linkage studies: an example using chromosome 10p14-10q11 in type 1 diabetes.
    Johnson GC; Koeleman BP; Todd JA
    Am J Med Genet; 2002 Nov; 113(2):158-66. PubMed ID: 12407706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of sib-pair and variance-components methods for genomic screening.
    Pugh EW; Jaquish CE; Sorant AJ; Doetsch JP; Bailey-Wilson JE; Wilson AF
    Genet Epidemiol; 1997; 14(6):867-72. PubMed ID: 9433592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Combined linkage and association mapping of quantitative trait Loci with missing completely at random genotype data.
    Fan R; Liu L; Jung J; Zhong M
    Behav Genet; 2008 May; 38(3):316-36. PubMed ID: 18306033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A note on the asymptotic properties of affected-sib-pair linkage tests.
    Wang K
    Ann Hum Genet; 2004 Jul; 68(Pt 4):367-75. PubMed ID: 15225162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Testing association and linkage using affected-sib-parent study designs.
    Millstein J; Siegmund KD; Conti DV; Gauderman WJ
    Genet Epidemiol; 2005 Nov; 29(3):225-33. PubMed ID: 16121357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Combining the case-control methodology with the small size transmission/disequilibrium test for multiallelic markers.
    Guo W; Fung WK
    Eur J Hum Genet; 2005 Sep; 13(9):1007-12. PubMed ID: 15957000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Likelihood-based inference for the genetic relative risk based on affected-sibling-pair marker data.
    McKnight B; Tierney C; McGorray SP; Day NE
    Biometrics; 1998 Jun; 54(2):426-43. PubMed ID: 9629637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Hidden linkage: a comparison of the affected sib pair (ASP) test and transmission/disequilibrium test (TDT).
    McGinnis RE
    Ann Hum Genet; 1998 Mar; 62(Pt 2):159-79. PubMed ID: 9759477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Testing linkage and gene x environment interaction: comparison of different affected sib-pair methods.
    Dizier MH; Selinger-Leneman H; Genin E
    Genet Epidemiol; 2003 Jul; 25(1):73-9. PubMed ID: 12813728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Confidence intervals for relative risk estimates from affected-sib-pair data.
    Cordell HJ; Olson JM
    Genet Epidemiol; 1997; 14(6):593-8. PubMed ID: 9433548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effect of genotyping error on type-I error rate of affected sib pair studies with genotyped parents.
    Seaman SR; Holmans P
    Hum Hered; 2005; 59(3):157-64. PubMed ID: 15925894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.