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