Comparing performance of non–tree-based and tree-based association mapping methods

BMC Proceedings

Table 1 Comparing power and type I error across methods using simulated data

Gene		TNN (97 SNPs)	LEPR (79 SNPs)	FLT3 (87 SNPs)	TCIRG1 (139 SNPs)	GSN (131 SNPs)
Type I error	LSS	0.010	0.045	0.020	0.015	0.020
Type I error	t-Statistic	0.075	0.100	0.085	0.100	0.100
Power	LSS	1.000	0.855	0.025	0.030	0.100
Power	t-Statistic	1.000	0.995	0.140	0.110	0.035

This table shows the power of detection for each of the 5 considered genes when considering 200 simulated Q1 (null) and 200 SBP phenotypes. The type I error of LSS appeared to be well controlled below 0.05 (row 1), whereas the t-statistic shows slightly inflated type I error rates (row 2). Both LSS and the t-test performed well when analyzing TNN and LEPR (rows 3 and 4). Both methods showed smaller power in the analysis of FLT3, TCIRG1, and GSN (rows 3 and 4). Neither method showed uniquely better performance across the 5 genes studied

ISSN: 1753-6561