Skip to main content

Table 3 Power to detect an association for two susceptibility sites simulated under model 2

From: On the use of haplotype phylogeny to detect disease susceptibility loci

   Model 2  
Tree CT CLADHC HT SbST
1 97.8 (3.7) 99.3 (3.8) 97.7 (5.0) 99.1 (6.9)
2 95.1 (3.6) 97.7 (2.9) 97.9 (5.6) 95.8 (4.3)
3 94.2 (4.9) 99.4 (4.9) 97.9 (5.1) 98.6 (4.9)
4 97.6 (4.6) 97.8 (4.6) 97.8 (5.5) 98.6 (4.6)
5 98.5 (5.3) 99.5 (4.5) 98.9 (5.7) 98.2 (7.4)
6 98.9 (4.4) 97.9 (3.9) 98.5 (5.7) 96.9 (6.6)
7 93.0 (5.1) 93.5 (4.6) 96.9 (5.6) 95.5 (5.2)
8 95.2 (6.1) 99.0 (5.3) 98.2 (6.2) 95.4 (4.2)
9 96.7 (3.6) 97.3 (3.1) 97.6 (4.1) 97.7 (4.0)
10 99.9 (4.5) 99.5 (4.0) 98.2 (60.) 99.8 (5.8)
Average 96.7 (4.6) 98.06 (4.2) 97.96 (5.45) 97.56 (5.4)
Std dev.a 2.24 (0.8) 1.83 (0.8) 0.54 (0.6) 1.58 (1.2)
  1. Sample size: 200 cases and 200 controls, 1000 replicates, penetrance: 0.9 for the homozygotes carrying the two susceptibility alleles, 0.3 for the other genotypes. The corresponding type I errors are indicated in italics within brackets. For each tree, the method giving the best result is underlined. CT: Cladistic Test, CLADHC: test developed by Durrant et al. [29], HT: Haplotypic Test, SbST: Site by Site Test
  2. a Standard deviation