Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T09:40:43.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparisons of assumptions for different ascertainment models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2016

Jon Stene
Jon Stene*
Affiliation:
(Institute of Statistics, University of Copenhagen)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
Advances in Applied Probability , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 7 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 1981 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Stene, J. (1978) Choice of ascertainment model I. Discrimination between single-proband models by means of birth order data. Ann. Hum. Genet., Lond. 42, 219–229.Google Scholar
Stene, J. (1979) Choice of ascertainment model II. Discrimination between multi-proband models by means of birth order data. Ann. Hum. Genet., Lond. 42, 493–505.Google Scholar
Wirtz, A., Stengel-Rutkowski, S., Stene, J., Frankenberger, R., Krauss, C., Albert, A., Götz-Sothmann, M. and Murken, J. (1980) Pränatale Diagnostik bei Eltern mit einer balancierten chromosomalen Strukturaberration. Geburtsh. u. Frauenheilk. 40, 575–592.Google Scholar