Table 3

Results for the simulation study for the case of having common CNVs
Bayesian Shared Model
Multinomial Posterior Normal Posterior
# SNPs χ2 K-W regression Distribution Approximation Probability
high risk scenario (OR=2.0)
TPR 2000 100.00 0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
TNR 2000 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.99 99.96
TPR 500 100.00 0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
TNR 500 99.73 100.00 99.73 99.99 99.95 99.80
moderate risk scenario (OR=1.5)
TPR 2000 60.25 0 56.75 75.25 75.50 75.00
TNR 2000 99.95 100.00 99.95 99.98 99.99 99.95
TPR 500 69.25 0 67.50 96.25 96.25 95.75
TNR 500 99.81 100.00 99.81 99.96 99.99 99.98
low risk scenario (OR=1.2)
TPR 2000 0.75 0 0.75 10.50 10.25 10.25
TNR 2000 99.99 100 99.9 100.00 100.00 99.98
TPR 500 1.50 0 3.25 25.25 26.50 25.50
TNR 500 99.99 100 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.98

Results for the simulation described in Simulation Studies Section for the case of having common CNVs with major allele frequency simulated from U(0.01, 0.1). The different scenarios are described in that section. We compare four different approaches: χ2 test, Kruskall-Wallis (K-W), Multinomial regression using likelihood ratio test, and our proposed Bayesian model. The comparison was based on computing the True Positive and Negative Rates, TPR and TNR respectively. Results are expressed in %.

González et al.

González et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2012 13:130   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-130

Open Data