| 1. |
- Rosser, Z H, et al.
(författare)
-
Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography, rather than by language.
- 2000
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Human Genetics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9297 .- 1537-6605. ; 67:6, s. 1526-43
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Clinal patterns of autosomal genetic diversity within Europe have been interpreted in previous studies in terms of a Neolithic demic diffusion model for the spread of agriculture; in contrast, studies using mtDNA have traced many founding lineages to the Paleolithic and have not shown strongly clinal variation. We have used 11 human Y-chromosomal biallelic polymorphisms, defining 10 haplogroups, to analyze a sample of 3,616 Y chromosomes belonging to 47 European and circum-European populations. Patterns of geographic differentiation are highly nonrandom, and, when they are assessed using spatial autocorrelation analysis, they show significant clines for five of six haplogroups analyzed. Clines for two haplogroups, representing 45% of the chromosomes, are continentwide and consistent with the demic diffusion hypothesis. Clines for three other haplogroups each have different foci and are more regionally restricted and are likely to reflect distinct population movements, including one from north of the Black Sea. Principal-components analysis suggests that populations are related primarily on the basis of geography, rather than on the basis of linguistic affinity. This is confirmed in Mantel tests, which show a strong and highly significant partial correlation between genetics and geography but a low, nonsignificant partial correlation between genetics and language. Genetic-barrier analysis also indicates the primacy of geography in the shaping of patterns of variation. These patterns retain a strong signal of expansion from the Near East but also suggest that the demographic history of Europe has been complex and influenced by other major population movements, as well as by linguistic and geographic heterogeneities and the effects of drift.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pennells, Lisa, et al.
(författare)
-
Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration : individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:7, s. 621-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after ‘recalibration’, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at ‘high’ 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29–39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22–24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44–51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37–39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.
|
|
