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 *

210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9683590)

  • 1. Robustness and power of the maximum-likelihood-binomial and maximum-likelihood-score methods, in multipoint linkage analysis of affected-sibship data.
    Abel L; Müller-Myhsok B
    Am J Hum Genet; 1998 Aug; 63(2):638-47. PubMed ID: 9683590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Maximum-Likelihood-Binomial method for genetic model-free linkage analysis of quantitative traits in sibships.
    Alcaïs A; Abel L
    Genet Epidemiol; 1999; 17(2):102-17. PubMed ID: 10414555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Likelihood-ratio affected sib-pair tests applied to multiply affected sibships: issues of power and type I error rate.
    Holmans P
    Genet Epidemiol; 2001 Jan; 20(1):44-56. PubMed ID: 11119296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Maximum-Likelihood-Binomial method revisited: a robust approach for model-free linkage analysis of quantitative traits in large sibships.
    Cobat A; Abel L; Alcaïs A
    Genet Epidemiol; 2011 Jan; 35(1):46-56. PubMed ID: 21181896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Linkage detection adaptive to linkage disequilibrium: the disequilibrium maximum-likelihood-binomial test for affected-sibship data.
    Huang J; Jiang Y
    Am J Hum Genet; 1999 Dec; 65(6):1741-59. PubMed ID: 10577929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Incorporation of covariates in multipoint model-free linkage analysis of binary traits: how important are unaffecteds?
    Alcaïs A; Abel L
    Eur J Hum Genet; 2001 Aug; 9(8):613-20. PubMed ID: 11528507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Linkage analysis of quantitative trait loci: sib pairs or sibships?
    Alcaïs A; Abel L
    Hum Hered; 2000; 50(4):251-6. PubMed ID: 10782019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Removing phenotypic distribution assumptions from tests of linkage disequilibrium for quantitative traits.
    Alcaïs A; Abel L
    Genet Epidemiol; 2003 Apr; 24(3):191-9. PubMed ID: 12652523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Independent confirmation of a major locus for obesity on chromosome 10.
    Hinney A; Ziegler A; Oeffner F; Wedewardt C; Vogel M; Wulftange H; Geller F; Stübing K; Siegfried W; Goldschmidt HP; Remschmidt H; Hebebrand J
    J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 2000 Aug; 85(8):2962-5. PubMed ID: 10946912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The impact of genotyping error on family-based analysis of quantitative traits.
    Abecasis GR; Cherny SS; Cardon LR
    Eur J Hum Genet; 2001 Feb; 9(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 11313746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multipoint analysis of quantitative traits.
    Marlow AJ; John S; Worthington J
    Genet Epidemiol; 1997; 14(6):845-50. PubMed ID: 9433588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Determining trait locus position from multipoint analysis: accuracy and power of three different statistics.
    Greenberg DA; Abreu PC
    Genet Epidemiol; 2001 Dec; 21(4):299-314. PubMed ID: 11754466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Allele frequency misspecification: effect on power and Type I error of model-dependent linkage analysis of quantitative traits under random ascertainment.
    Mandal DM; Sorant AJ; Atwood LD; Wilson AF; Bailey-Wilson JE
    BMC Genet; 2006 Apr; 7():21. PubMed ID: 16618369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy.
    Wang J; Santure AW
    Genetics; 2009 Apr; 181(4):1579-94. PubMed ID: 19221199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Power of regression and maximum likelihood methods to map QTL from sib-pair and DZ twin data.
    Visscher PM; Hopper JL
    Ann Hum Genet; 2001 Nov; 65(Pt 6):583-601. PubMed ID: 11851988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Sibship T2 association tests of complex diseases for tightly linked markers.
    Fan R; Knapp M
    Hum Genomics; 2005 Jun; 2(2):90-112. PubMed ID: 16004725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The triangle test statistic (TTS): a test of genetic homogeneity using departure from the triangle constraints in IBD distribution among affected sib-pairs.
    Dizier MH; Quesneville H; Prum B; Selinger-Leneman H; Clerget-Darpoux F
    Ann Hum Genet; 2000 Sep; 64(Pt 5):433-42. PubMed ID: 11281281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.