{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01288936627282492, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.682926829268292, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparisons of assumptions for different ascertainment models

It now suffices to condition on the initial ascertainment event. However, this method has its drawbacks. It is unable to distinguish between the actual informativeness of an old individual and a young individual with the same potential to become affected. A preponderance of young individuals can be avoided by excluding from the sample all those individuals who are below a certain age, x years say. We now condition on the affected status of the proband given that he is at least x years old. A pedigree obtained in this manner may not be as informative as a pedigree obtained when ages are taken into account. It is seen, however, that pedigrees obtained by these two methods do not differ wildly. The gain in tractability and the ability to correct for biases may enable us to resolve the genetic mechanisms operating on certain traits with variable ages of onset.