<p>The first panel corresponds to simulation scenario 1 using the LD structure of the DRD2 gene and the second panel corresponds to simulation scenario 1 using the LD structure of the CHRNA3/A5/B4 gene cluster.</p
<p>Each line shows the power vs size for a different test statistic; the univariate tests ( and ANOV...
<p>Genes with a significant change in expression level between the WT and the SPL20 strain during th...
<p>A) Plot of the Ising energy for all the simulations between GNUGo and SMART, upper panel correspo...
<p>Power comparison for different approaches at the 5% and 1% levels of significance for simulation ...
<p>(a) Simulated power based on the <i>PTPRD</i> gene. (b) Simulated power based on the <i>MLH1</i> ...
<p>A-D, KW, MLM and LM. The “Power” was defined as the detection frequency in 500 repeats for a cert...
<p>For all simulations: . Panel A: Effect of sample size assuming transcribed and <i>cis</i> acting ...
Power at the genome-wide significance level of 2.5∙10−6 under the different simulation scenarios usi...
Power comparison of gSAME (red bars) and GLM (blue bars) for gene-level simulations.</p
<p>The figure shows the empirical power at . Top panel: clustered causal variants; bottom panel: non...
<p>Power of detection for the different 2-locus models. Power was estimated as the proportion of ite...
<p>Footnote: Note that in some scenarios, different methods overlap. This is the case for scenario 1...
<p>A) A plot of the Ising energy of all the simulations put together. B) Normalized Ising Energy of ...
<p>Left panel: Power versus relative risk ratio (RRR) for different sample sizes, minor allele frequ...
<p>500 simulations were based on haplotype distribution for each of 13 deep sequenced candidate gene...
<p>Each line shows the power vs size for a different test statistic; the univariate tests ( and ANOV...
<p>Genes with a significant change in expression level between the WT and the SPL20 strain during th...
<p>A) Plot of the Ising energy for all the simulations between GNUGo and SMART, upper panel correspo...
<p>Power comparison for different approaches at the 5% and 1% levels of significance for simulation ...
<p>(a) Simulated power based on the <i>PTPRD</i> gene. (b) Simulated power based on the <i>MLH1</i> ...
<p>A-D, KW, MLM and LM. The “Power” was defined as the detection frequency in 500 repeats for a cert...
<p>For all simulations: . Panel A: Effect of sample size assuming transcribed and <i>cis</i> acting ...
Power at the genome-wide significance level of 2.5∙10−6 under the different simulation scenarios usi...
Power comparison of gSAME (red bars) and GLM (blue bars) for gene-level simulations.</p
<p>The figure shows the empirical power at . Top panel: clustered causal variants; bottom panel: non...
<p>Power of detection for the different 2-locus models. Power was estimated as the proportion of ite...
<p>Footnote: Note that in some scenarios, different methods overlap. This is the case for scenario 1...
<p>A) A plot of the Ising energy of all the simulations put together. B) Normalized Ising Energy of ...
<p>Left panel: Power versus relative risk ratio (RRR) for different sample sizes, minor allele frequ...
<p>500 simulations were based on haplotype distribution for each of 13 deep sequenced candidate gene...
<p>Each line shows the power vs size for a different test statistic; the univariate tests ( and ANOV...
<p>Genes with a significant change in expression level between the WT and the SPL20 strain during th...
<p>A) Plot of the Ising energy for all the simulations between GNUGo and SMART, upper panel correspo...
DOI
Add to ORKG