Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Hum Genet. 2013 Sep 21;133(2):139–150. doi: 10.1007/s00439-013-1361-9

Table 2.

Power comparison for admixture population at alpha=0.051

Design
Methods
I
II
III
IV
FAM 2 CC 3 UN 4 UI 5 FAM CC UN UI FAM CC UN UI FAM CC UN UI
RR=1.5
  Checkerboard .005 .003 .005 .017 .008 .003 .007 .026 .006 .012 .023 .047 .012 .003 .009 .037
    Diagonal .002 .003 .006 .013 .004 .001 .003 .013 .003 .008 .012 .027 .004 .001 .005 .016
  Upper corner
.000 .001 .004 .008 .001 .001 .003 .008 .001 .006 .009 .015 .003 .002 .005 .016
RR=2.0
  Checkerboard .036 .023 .119 .324 .079 .025 .122 .405 .080 .249 .457 .719 .221 .028 .217 .693
    Diagonal .019 .024 .092 .210 .034 .019 .074 .261 .037 .161 .286 .477 .127 .026 .145 .486
  Upper corner
.006 .016 .065 .120 .016 .015 .052 .152 .022 .133 .248 .376 .049 .013 .083 .274
RR=2.5
  Checkerboard1 .203 .174 .613 .899 .389 .182 .602 .949 .410 .826 .956 .994 .787 .183 .783 .994
    Diagonal .082 .121 .431 .702 .227 .124 .404 .736 .268 .724 .899 .974 .505 .119 .569 .816
  Upper corner
.043 .101 .357 .553 .084 .091 .259 .500 .125 .528 .693 .797 .315 .093 .453 .779
RR=3.0
  Checkerboard .460 .489 .932 .995 .764 .484 .933 .999 .790 .986 1.00 1.00 .973 .491 .987 1.00
    Diagonal .256 .375 .837 .970 .653 .398 .862 .991 .573 .917 .960 .980 .739 .308 .820 .962
  Upper corner .140 .323 .742 .863 .360 .275 .655 .849 .312 .672 .739 .801 .624 .262 .770 .909

  Mean power .104 .138 .350 .473 .218 .135 .331 .491 .219 .435 .524 .601 .363 .127 .404 .582

Notes:

1

Power = the proportion of true models significant at the given significance level in all simulations. Each power in this table is the mean of 25 scenarios, each of which was sampled on allele frequency between 0.05~0.95 and then replicated 500 times.

2

FAM for family-based method

3

CC for case-control method

4

UN for unrelated individuals (unbalanced case-control)

5

UI for unified method