TABLE 4

Estimated penetrances and empirical power in the dominant mode

q+/q+ (mean ± SD)a (mean ± SD)aEmpirical
 powerb
1.00.20025 ± 0.020850.20000 ± 0.016250.05060
1.10.19958 ± 0.020560.18202 ± 0.015680.10070
1.20.19999 ± 0.020760.16722 ± 0.015180.24860
1.30.20020 ± 0.020780.15390 ± 0.014470.45060
1.40.19968 ± 0.020980.14314 ± 0.014320.61810
1.50.20008 ± 0.020740.13298 ± 0.013770.77940
1.60.20003 ± 0.020770.12499 ± 0.013400.86990
1.70.19998 ± 0.020660.11807 ± 0.013150.92470
1.80.20021 ± 0.020600.11083 ± 0.012720.96390
1.90.20007 ± 0.020460.10493 ± 0.012650.97860
2.00.20003 ± 0.020590.09990 ± 0.012360.98910
  • a Mean ± SD of the estimates for two penetrances obtained by analysis under the alternative hypothesis.

  • b The proportion of attempts that yielded values of the statistic over 3.841 (the value that yields the cumulative density function of 0.95 for the χ2 distribution with 1 d.f.).

  • Each simulation was performed as described in simulation (under methods) under the alternative hypothesis with a given penetrance of q+ = 0.2 and varying the other penetrance of q in the dominant mode. The relative risk (q+/q) was changed from 1.0 to 2.0. The sample size N was fixed at 1000. PENHAPLO was used to estimate + and under the alternative hypothesis and to calculate the statistic −2 log(L0max/Lmax). This simulation was repeated 10,000 times for each parameter set.