Table 4.
Alternative Model Simulation
| Model A – no heterogeneity: | ||||||||||
| Affected Sibs | Unaffected Sibs | |||||||||
| Parents | Total | Sampled | Total | Sampled | Zc | Zp | ARE(Zc) | ARE(Zp) | Nc(80%) | Np(80%) |
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3.19 | 100 | 304 | |||
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2.70 | 2.42 | 72 | 38 | 424 | 528 |
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3.03 | 3.17 | 90 | 49 | 337 | 308 |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6.09 | 364 | 83 | |||
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6.46 | 6.00 | 410 | 236 | 74 | 86 |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6.12 | 6.47 | 368 | 206 | 83 | 74 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.88 | 41 | 373 | ||||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3.17 | 2.69 | 49 | 28 | 308 | 427 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3.17 | 3.33 | 49 | 36 | 308 | 279 |
| Model B – less common, equally penetrant locus: | ||||||||||
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2.37 | 100 | 550 | |||
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3.04 | 2.88 | 165 | 98 | 334 | 373 |
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.73 | 2.81 | 133 | 70 | 415 | 391 |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4.66 | 387 | 142 | |||
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5.29 | 5.11 | 498 | 310 | 110 | 118 |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4.86 | 5.18 | 421 | 239 | 131 | 115 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2.73 | 66 | 415 | |||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2.46 | 2.22 | 54 | 35 | 511 | 627 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.92 | 2.95 | 76 | 52 | 363 | 355 |
| Model C – equally common, equally penetrant locus: | ||||||||||
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2.38 | 100 | 546 | |||
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1.93 | 1.95 | 66 | 45 | 830 | 813 |
| 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.33 | 2.36 | 96 | 49 | 569 | 555 |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3.45 | 210 | 260 | |||
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3.47 | 3.33 | 213 | 131 | 257 | 279 |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3.48 | 3.84 | 214 | 130 | 255 | 210 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2.26 | 45 | 605 | |||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2.56 | 2.44 | 58 | 42 | 472 | 519 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2.22 | 2.14 | 44 | 27 | 627 | 675 |
Mean Z score, asymptotic relative efficiency per genotype (ARE–see text), and sample size required to attain 80% power for two-point linkage (θ = 0.05) for predisposition to colorectal cancer with a baseline risk of 0.018, a relative risk to carriers of 20, allele frequency of 0.003, with a lifetime penetrance of 0.27, under 3 different heterogeneity models: A) no heterogeneity; B) an equally penetrant, less common (allele frequency 0.001) unlinked predisposing locus; C) an equally penetrant, equally common unlinked predisposing locus. All results based on 500 simulated families and 20 replicate simulations per parameter set.
Zc mean concordant test; Zp mean paired test; ARE(Zc) asymptotic relative efficiency concordant test; ARE(Zp) asymptotic relative efficiency paired test; Nc(80%) number of families required for 80% power using concordant test; Np(80%) number of families required for 80% power using paired test.