Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Aug 7.
Published in final edited form as: Stat Med. 2008 May 20;27(11):1973–1992. doi: 10.1002/sim.3196

Table 4.

Odds Ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for selected variants using maximum likelihood and pseudo-likelihood methods under different second stage model scenarios.

Variant SPM MPM Functional GenoMEL Polya Odds Ratios (95% CI)
MLE b Model 1c Model 2d Model 3e Model 4f
c.50+37G/C 15 6 no 0 0.8 (0.3–2.1) 0.9 (0.4–2.3) 0.8 (0.3–2.1) 0.8 (0.3–2.1) 0.8 (0.3–2.1)
(−)33G>C 9 6 no 0 1.2 (0.4–3.6) 1.3 (0.5–3.7) 1.2 (0.4–3.3) 1.1 (0.4–3.3) 1.1 (0.4–3.3)
(−)34G>T 2 7 no 1 13.5 (2.7–67.3) 7.6 (2.1–27.5) 6.4 (1.8–23.3) 7.5 (2.0–28.6) 6.8 (1.8–25.3)
c.301G>T 1 5 yes 1 2.29 14.7 (1.6–132.3) 6.3 (1.4–29) 7.3 (1.5–35.4) 8.8 (1.8–44.2) 10.8 (2.0–57.8)
c.8_9ins 6 0 yes 0 0.6 (0.1–3.5) 0.7 (0.1–3.9) 0.7 (0.1–3.7) 0.5 (0.1–3.3)
c.123G>A 4 1 no 0 0.4 (0.0–5.0) 0.9 (0.2–4.5) 0.6 (0.1–3.6) 0.7 (0.1–3.7) 0.6 (0.1–3.7)
(−)14C>T 2 1 no 0 1.2 (0.1–14.6) 1.6 (0.2–14.3) 0.8 (0.1–10.1) 0.8 (0.1–6.7) 0.8 (0.1–7.5)
(−)25C>T 2 0 no 0 1.1 (0.1–8.9) 0.7 (0.1–6.8) 0.7 (0.1–5.4) 0.7 (0.1–5.9)
c.373G>C 3 0 yes 0 1.99 0.9 (0.1–6.4) 1.1 (0.2–7.6) 1.0 (0.1–6.2) 1.3 (0.2–9.0)
c.87_89delG 2 0 yes 1 0.9 (0.1–6.3) 1.0 (0.1–7.6) 2.2 (0.3–15.1) 1.1 (0.1–10.0)
c.318G>A 2 1 yes 0 2.0 (0.2–23.1) 2.0 (0.3–12.5) 2.4 (0.4–15.0) 1.8 (0.3–10.7) 1.3 (0.2–9.5)
c.159G>A 1 2 yes 1 2.52 2.3 (0.2–25.5) 2.2 (0.4–13.0) 2.6 (0.4–16.4) 4.2 (0.6–28.1) 6.1 (0.8–46.3)
c.159G>C 1 1 yes 1 2.52 2.5 (0.1–41.4) 2.2 (0.3–15.2) 2.7 (0.4–19.3) 4.5 (0.7–31.0) 6.5 (0.8–50.4)
c.334C>G 0 2 yes 1 1.99 6.3 (0.9–43.8) 8.0 (1.1–59.6) 10.2 (1.5–70.7) 11.5 (1.6–85.5)
c.170C>T 0 2 yes 0 0.28 3.6 (0.5–28.3) 4.7 (0.5–40.5) 2.7 (0.4–18.1) 1.6 (0.2–14.0)
c.95T>C 0 2 yes 1 2.32 7.1 (1.0–48.4) 9.0 (1.2–65.3) 11.0 (1.6–75.0) 15.0 (2.0–111.9)
(−)70G/A 0 1 no 0 3.3 (0.4–28.0) 2.0 (0.2–19.6) 1.4 (0.2–11.3) 1.6 (0.2–12.9)
c.146T>G 0 1 yes 1 1.98 3.7 (0.4–31.6) 4.9 (0.5–44.9) 7.5 (1.0–58.9) 8.5 (1.0–72.2)
c.247C>T 0 1 yes 0 2.67 4.5 (0.5–37.8) 5.9 (0.7–53.2) 3.0 (0.4–22.1) 7.6 (0.8–74.0)
c.67G>A 0 1 yes 0 1.82 3.9 (0.5–32.5) 5.1 (0.6–46.1) 2.7 (0.4–19.8) 4.0 (0.5–32.8)
c.249C>A 1 0 yes 0 3.12 1.3 (0.2–11.7) 1.7 (0.2–15.5) 1.3 (0.2–9.4) 4.0 (0.3–46.6)
c.370C>T 1 0 yes 0 0.17 1.6 (0.2–14.1) 2.0 (0.2–19.1) 1.4 (0.2–10.5) 0.6 (0.0–9.5)
c.384G>A 1 0 no 0 1.3 (0.2–11.7) 0.8 (0.1–8.3) 0.7 (0.1–6.1) 0.8 (0.1–6.7)
c.67G>C 1 0 yes 1 2.27 1.6 (0.2–14.4) 2.0 (0.2–19.5) 4.1 (0.5–31.8) 5.3 (0.6–44.3)
a

A “ – “ indicates that the Polyphen score could not be computed

b

Variants without at least one case and one control do not have a finite MLE

c

Model 1 assumes exchangeability of the random effects β

d

Model 2 contains an intercept and the functional status as a 2nd stage covariate

e

Model 3 contains as 2nd stage covariates an intercept, the functional status, and an indicator whether the variant was observed in GenoMEL[14]

f

Model 4 contains the following 2nd stage covariates: intercept, functional status, an indicator whether the variant was observed in GenoMEL, and the Polyphen score