TABLE V.

Power (in percentage) comparisons of the eight two-locus epistatic models

Model	No. of markers	ELA	FITF	CSM	SMT	HT-SFS
Ep1	20	53.5	54.5	48	36	51.5
	100	39	21	21	15	23.5
	1,000	66		48	34.5	43.5
Ep2	20	77.5	65	49.5	40	53.5
	100	64.5	23	26	21	22.5
	1,000	84		68	46	37
Ep3	20	58	49	57.5	43	57.5
	100	49.5	15.3	25	22.5	27
	1,000	70.5		64.5	43.5	50.5
Ep4	20	51	44.5	49	43.5	69
	100	32	17	24.5	23.5	32.5
	1,000	55.5		37	41	62
P1	20	100	29.2	100	0.5	0
	100	87	5	97	0	0
	1,000	96		100	0	0
P2	20	100	100	100	0	1
	100	100	100	100	0	0.5
	1,000	100		100	0	0
P3	20	90.5	89.5	82.5	0.5	0.5
	100	58	41	48	0	0.5
	1,000	96		77	0	0
P4	20	95	93.5	89	0.5	1.5
	100	84	75	78	0	1
	1,000	100		99	0	0.5

Each data set consisted of 200 cases and 200 controls (400 cases and 400 controls for the cases of 1,000 markers). Power corresponding to blank cells was not calculated because of being too computationally intensive. The CSM searched up to two-locus combinations. For each scenario, the highest power is in bold. ELA, ensemble learning approach; FITF, focused interaction testing framework; CSM, combinatorial searching method; SMT, single-marker test; HT-SFS, Hotelling’s T with the sequence-forward-selection.