Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This report examines the impact of two major kinds of unequal ascertainment on the estimation of true probandwise concordance (Cpbt) in twin studies: 1) concordance-dependent - where the ascertainment rate differs in affected members of concordant vs discordant pairs, and 2) non-independent - where ascertainment rates differ in affected members of concordant pairs where the cotwin has vs has not been ascertained. Concordance-dependent ascertainment is easily modeled algebraically; non-independent ascertainment is more complex and we here propose a model based on survival analysis. Overall, concordance-dependent ascertainment produces greater bias in estimates of probandwise concordance than does non-independent ascertainment. The bias introduced by concordance-dependent ascertainment is greatest when Cpbt is low and/or when the ascertainment rate for twins in concordant pairs is low. The bias introduced by non-independent ascertainment is greatest when Cpbt is high and/or when the ascertainment probability for an affected twin in a concordant pair where the cotwin has already been ascertained approaches unity. The impact of concordance-dependent and non-independent ascertainment on estimates of heritability and common environment is examined. Correction terms to estimate Cpbt in the presence of concordance-dependent and/or non-independent ascertainment are presented.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kendler et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: