On 2016 Nov 06, David Mage commented:

Perhaps the authors are unfamiliar with the pediatric literature on SIDS and SUDC. They reported 94 male, 57 female SUDC cases for a male fraction of 0.6225, that has been modeled as a recessive X-linkage in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium for a dominant allele protective of respiratory failure with frequency p = 1/3. The XY male will be at risk of possessing a non-protective recessive allele with frequency q = 2/3 and the XX female will be at risk with frequency (2/3)(2/3) = 4/9 leading to the observed 50% male excess for equal numbers of males and females at risk. San Diego during the years 1999-2011 had a male excess in that age group, 1 to 4 years, of 4.48%, leading to a prediction of the male fraction of SIDS < 1 and SUDC > 1 of (60 x 1.048/[40 + 60 x 1.048]) = 0.610

Even Dr. Brad Thach (PMID 18246101), a co-author to one of these authors (PMID 19692691) reported this 0.61 prediction and 0.61 observation for SIDS that we have published on for over 20 years (PMID 8748092, 9076995, 15384886, 20050322, 20042039, 24164639, 27188625). We wonder why then the authors of this SUDC paper seem still to ignore the persistent 0.61 male fraction we and so many others now have reported, and wonder what explication they have for it, other than an X-linkage or a pure random happenstance?

On 2016 Nov 06, David Mage commented:

Perhaps the authors are unfamiliar with the pediatric literature on SIDS and SUDC. They reported 94 male, 57 female SUDC cases for a male fraction of 0.6225, that has been modeled as a recessive X-linkage in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium for a dominant allele protective of respiratory failure with frequency p = 1/3. The XY male will be at risk of possessing a non-protective recessive allele with frequency q = 2/3 and the XX female will be at risk with frequency (2/3)(2/3) = 4/9 leading to the observed 50% male excess for equal numbers of males and females at risk. San Diego during the years 1999-2011 had a male excess in that age group, 1 to 4 years, of 4.48%, leading to a prediction of the male fraction of SIDS < 1 and SUDC > 1 of (60 x 1.048/[40 + 60 x 1.048]) = 0.610

Even Dr. Brad Thach (PMID 18246101), a co-author to one of these authors (PMID 19692691) reported this 0.61 prediction and 0.61 observation for SIDS that we have published on for over 20 years (PMID 8748092, 9076995, 15384886, 20050322, 20042039, 24164639, 27188625). We wonder why then the authors of this SUDC paper seem still to ignore the persistent 0.61 male fraction we and so many others now have reported, and wonder what explication they have for it, other than an X-linkage or a pure random happenstance?