<p>Power comparison for different approaches at the 5% and 1% levels of significance for simulation scenario 3, where all the variants were in linkage equilibrium.</p
<p>A) Plot of the Ising energy for all the simulations between GNUGo and SMART, upper panel correspo...
<p>The figure shows the empirical power at . Top panel: clustered causal variants; bottom panel: non...
<p>Power of (a) random-effect, (b) fixed-effect meta-analysis and (c) heterogeneity meta-analysis me...
<p>The first panel corresponds to simulation scenario 1 using the LD structure of the DRD2 gene and ...
<p>For all simulations: . Panel A: Effect of sample size assuming transcribed and <i>cis</i> acting ...
<p>Each line shows the power vs size for a different test statistic; the univariate tests ( and ANOV...
<p>Footnote: Note that in some scenarios, different methods overlap. This is the case for scenario 1...
<p>A-D, KW, MLM and LM. The “Power” was defined as the detection frequency in 500 repeats for a cert...
<p>Simulation results at significance level with different methods for phenotypic data generated fr...
<p>Powers are calculated for nominal α levels 0.05 (left) and 0.01(right) and for dichotomous traits...
Comparison of the results of simulation experiment 5 of the Stacking algorithm with different base m...
<p>A) A plot of the Ising energy of all the simulations put together. B) Normalized Ising Energy of ...
<p>In the first row, we compare power of the three methods for different values of heritability unde...
<p>For each simulation setting where (or, equivalently, ), power was assessed by tracking the perce...
<p>Results in Figures A and B show the effect of having both deleterious and protective rare variant...
<p>A) Plot of the Ising energy for all the simulations between GNUGo and SMART, upper panel correspo...
<p>The figure shows the empirical power at . Top panel: clustered causal variants; bottom panel: non...
<p>Power of (a) random-effect, (b) fixed-effect meta-analysis and (c) heterogeneity meta-analysis me...
<p>The first panel corresponds to simulation scenario 1 using the LD structure of the DRD2 gene and ...
<p>For all simulations: . Panel A: Effect of sample size assuming transcribed and <i>cis</i> acting ...
<p>Each line shows the power vs size for a different test statistic; the univariate tests ( and ANOV...
<p>Footnote: Note that in some scenarios, different methods overlap. This is the case for scenario 1...
<p>A-D, KW, MLM and LM. The “Power” was defined as the detection frequency in 500 repeats for a cert...
<p>Simulation results at significance level with different methods for phenotypic data generated fr...
<p>Powers are calculated for nominal α levels 0.05 (left) and 0.01(right) and for dichotomous traits...
Comparison of the results of simulation experiment 5 of the Stacking algorithm with different base m...
<p>A) A plot of the Ising energy of all the simulations put together. B) Normalized Ising Energy of ...
<p>In the first row, we compare power of the three methods for different values of heritability unde...
<p>For each simulation setting where (or, equivalently, ), power was assessed by tracking the perce...
<p>Results in Figures A and B show the effect of having both deleterious and protective rare variant...
<p>A) Plot of the Ising energy for all the simulations between GNUGo and SMART, upper panel correspo...
<p>The figure shows the empirical power at . Top panel: clustered causal variants; bottom panel: non...
<p>Power of (a) random-effect, (b) fixed-effect meta-analysis and (c) heterogeneity meta-analysis me...
DOI
Add to ORKG