Skip to main content
. 2014 Oct 2;95(4):371–382. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.09.003

Table 1.

Simulations of Ascertainment Bias

Simulation Direct ascertainment window Indirect ascertainment Mean anticipation (years)a Anticipation significantb Mean additive heritabilitya Heritability significantb Mean year of birth/age of onset slopea Slope significantb
1 1989–2013 None 16.4 100% 93% 100% −0.67 100%
2 1950–2013 None 4.9 98% 19% 16% −0.22 100%
3 1880–2013 None 1.6 23% 3% 5% −0.06 100%
4 1989–2013 Declining 5%/year 10.7 100% 59% 83% −0.55 100%
5 1950–2013 Declining 5%/year 3.4 79% 14% 11% −0.18 100%
6 1880–2013 Declining 5%/year 1.4 18% 3% 6% −0.05 98%
7 1989–2013 Declining 1%/year 2.0 33% 6% 5% −0.26 100%
8 1950–2013 Declining 1%/year 0.9 12% 4% 5% −0.12 100%
9 1880–2013 Declining 1%/year 0.4 6% 1% 4% −0.04 85%
10 1989–2013 Exhaustive 0.2 5% −1% 5% −0.20 99%

Ascertaining only those individuals with disease onset within a historical window creates false signals of anticipation and heritability (Simulation 1). These false signals are reduced, but not eliminated, by expanding the ascertainment window (Simulations 2 and 3). Probabilistic retrospective ascertainment (see text) reduces these signals further (Simulations 4–9). Only when retrospective ascertainment is 100% exhaustive does anticipation become reliably nonsignificant (Simulation 10).

a

Averages from 1,000 simulations.

b

Percentage of 1,000 simulations in which this figure was statistically significant at p < 0.05.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure