
An efficient difference method is constructed for solving one-dimensional nonlinear time-space fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation. The discrete method is developed by adopting the - scheme to handle Caputo fractional derivative, while a fourth-order difference method is invoked for space discretization. The well-posedness and a priori bound of the numerical solution are rigorously studied, and we prove that the difference scheme is unconditionally convergent in pointwise sense with the rate of , where and are the time and space steps respectively. In addition, the proposed method is extended to solve two-dimensional problem, and corresponding theoretical analysis is established. Several numerical tests are also provided to validate our theoretical analysis.
Citation: Mingfa Fei, Wenhao Li, Yulian Yi. Numerical analysis of a fourth-order linearized difference method for nonlinear time-space fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3635-3659. doi: 10.3934/era.2022186
[1] | Qianqian Zhang, Mingye Mu, Heyuan Ji, Qiushi Wang, Xingyu Wang . An adaptive type-2 fuzzy sliding mode tracking controller for a robotic manipulator. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(7): 3791-3813. doi: 10.3934/era.2023193 |
[2] | Lingling Zhang . Vibration analysis and multi-state feedback control of maglev vehicle-guideway coupling system. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3887-3901. doi: 10.3934/era.2022198 |
[3] | Duhui Chang, Yan Geng . Distributed data-driven iterative learning control for multi-agent systems with unknown input-output coupled parameters. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 867-889. doi: 10.3934/era.2025039 |
[4] | Zhizhou Zhang, Yueliang Pan, Weilong Zhao, Jinchu Zhang, Zheng Zi, Yuan Xie, Hehong Zhang . Frequency analysis of a discrete-time fast nonlinear tracking differentiator algorithm based on isochronic region method. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(9): 5157-5175. doi: 10.3934/era.2024238 |
[5] | Jian Gong, Yuan Zhao, Jinde Cao, Wei Huang . Platoon-based collision-free control for connected and automated vehicles at non-signalized intersections. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(4): 2149-2174. doi: 10.3934/era.2023111 |
[6] | Chao Ma, Hang Gao, Wei Wu . Adaptive learning nonsynchronous control of nonlinear hidden Markov jump systems with limited mode information. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(11): 6746-6762. doi: 10.3934/era.2023340 |
[7] | Tongtong Yu, Zhizhou Zhang, Yang Li, Weilong Zhao, Jinchu Zhang . Improved active disturbance rejection controller for rotor system of magnetic levitation turbomachinery. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(3): 1570-1586. doi: 10.3934/era.2023080 |
[8] | Xingting Geng, Jianwen Feng, Yi Zhao, Na Li, Jingyi Wang . Fixed-time synchronization of nonlinear coupled memristive neural networks with time delays via sliding-mode control. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(6): 3291-3308. doi: 10.3934/era.2023166 |
[9] | Ning Li, Yuequn Gao . Modified fractional order social media addiction modeling and sliding mode control considering a professionally operating population. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(6): 4043-4073. doi: 10.3934/era.2024182 |
[10] | Chao Yang, Juntao Wu, Zhengyang Qiao . An improved fixed-time stabilization problem of delayed coupled memristor-based neural networks with pinning control and indefinite derivative approach. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(5): 2428-2446. doi: 10.3934/era.2023123 |
An efficient difference method is constructed for solving one-dimensional nonlinear time-space fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation. The discrete method is developed by adopting the - scheme to handle Caputo fractional derivative, while a fourth-order difference method is invoked for space discretization. The well-posedness and a priori bound of the numerical solution are rigorously studied, and we prove that the difference scheme is unconditionally convergent in pointwise sense with the rate of , where and are the time and space steps respectively. In addition, the proposed method is extended to solve two-dimensional problem, and corresponding theoretical analysis is established. Several numerical tests are also provided to validate our theoretical analysis.
Alcohol dependence (AD) or Alcoholism, also regarded as alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a complex and relapsing neuropsychiatric disorder [1],[2]. World Health Organization (WHO) reported that approximately 140 million individuals addicted to alcohol globally, resulting in to 2.5 million death each year [3]. AD is regarded as a “reward deficiency syndrome” that intemperately affects public health [4],[5]. It has been found to be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors [6],[7]. Exact patho-physiological and molecular mechanism of AD is not known yet. However, molecular genetic studies support that multiple genes determine an individual's predisposition to AD [8]. Heritability of AD likely plays an important role in its development and is determined to be moderate to high [9],[10]. It was reported frequently that alcohol consumption increased homocysteine (Hcy) concentration i.e hyperhomocysteinaemia [11]. However, inconsistent results of the combined effect of both positive and negative association have been reported between alcohol intake and Hcy [12]. Hyperhomocystenemia is already reported as risk factor for several diseases or disorders including neural tube defects, Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, pregnancy complications, cardiovascular diseases, noninsulin dependent diabetes and end-stage renal disease as evidenced from several studies [13].
Homocysteine is a sulfur containing amino acid, several genetic and environmental risk factor are reported for higher plasma concentration of homocysteine [14]. Homocysteine (Hcy) is synthesized in methionine and folate cycle by demethylation of methionine. 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) enzyme of folate cycle plays an important role in homocysteine metabolism. MTHFR gene is present on chromosome 1p36.3. Numerous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) are known in MTHFR gene like C677T and A1298C etc [15],[16]. The most clinically important and studies polymorphism is C677T (rs1801133), in which cytosine (C) is substituted with thymine (T) at 677 nucleotide position and consequently alanine is replaced by valine in MTHFR enzyme (Ala 222 Val) [17],[18]. The variant MTHFR enzyme is thermolabile with reduced activity (~70%) and it increased the plasma homocysteine concentrations [15] (Frosst et al., 1995). Globally, frequency of mutant T allele varies greatly [19]–[23]. Yadav et al. [23] have conducted a comprehensive C667T polymorphism study and reported the highest frequency in European populations ranging from 24.1% to 64.3% and, lowest frequency from African population. Several studies revealed association of MTHFR gene C677T polymorphism with AD. However, findings showed inconsistent results [24]–[26]. To derive a more precise estimation of the relationship, authors have performed a meta-analysis.
Present meta-analysis is carried out according to MOOSE (Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology) guidelines.
Articles were retrieved through Pubmed, Google scholar, Springer Link, and Science Direct databases up to February 28, 2020, using following key words: “Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase” or “MTHFR” or “C677T” or “rs1801133” or “polymorphism” and “Alcohol dependence” or “Alcoholism” or “AD” or “Addiction”.
Inclusion criteria were following: (1) MTHFR C677T polymorphism and alcohol dependence association was investigated in the study, (2) MTHFR C677T genotype/allele numbers in alcohol dependence cases and controls were given in the study, (3) sufficient information for calculating the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and (4) Articles published in English language were only considered. Major reasons for studies exclusion were as follows: (1) no alcohol dependence cases analyzed, (2) the C677T polymorphism details information missing, and (3) duplicate article.
Name of first author, country name, number of cases and controls, number of genotypes in cases and controls and journal name with full reference from each article were extracted.
All analysis were done according to the method of Rai et al. [27]. Odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed effect and random effect models [28],[29]. A five genetic models viz. allele contrast, co-dominant, homozygote, dominant and recessive models were calculated. Heterogeneity was investigated and quantified by I2 statistic [30]. Chi-squared analysis was used to determine whether the genotype distribution of control group was in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium or not. Subetaoup analysis was conducted by ethnicity. In included articles, case samples were not categorized on the basis of gender, so the subetaoup analysis based on gender did not performed in present meta-analysis. Publication bias was investigated by Egger's regression intercept test [31]. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All calculations were done by softwares MIX version 1.7 [32] and MetaAnalyst [33] program.
Selection of studies is given in fow diagram (Figure 1). Following the exclusion criteria, 10 individual case-control studies with a total of 1676 cases and 1594 controls were included into this meta-analysis [24]–[26],[34]–[40]. One author [38] reported their data in to two categories, we included both set of data as different studies. Hence, total number of included studies in present meta-analysis is eleven (Table 1).
Study | Ethnicity | Control | Case | Case Genotype |
Control Genotype |
HWE p-value of controls | ||||
CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | |||||
Bonsch, 2006 | Caucasian | 115 | 134 | 64 | 56 | 14 | 60 | 41 | 14 | 0.10 |
Lutz, 2006 | Caucasian | 102 | 221 | 95 | 94 | 32 | 53 | 41 | 8 | 0.98 |
Lutz, 2007 | Caucasian | 101 | 142 | 65 | 58 | 19 | 53 | 40 | 8 | 0.90 |
Saffroy, 2008 | Caucasian | 93 | 242 | 108 | 113 | 21 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 0.41 |
Benyamina, 2009 | Caucasian | 93 | 120 | 56 | 53 | 11 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 0.41 |
Fabris, 2009 | Caucasian | 236 | 63 | 17 | 35 | 11 | 69 | 113 | 54 | 0.55 |
Shin, 2010 | Asian | 232 | 68 | 11 | 39 | 18 | 42 | 129 | 61 | 0.07 |
Supic, 2010, Heavy Alcoholic | Caucasian | 57 | 32 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 27 | 24 | 6 | 0.84 |
Supic, 2010, Non heavy Alcoholic | Caucasian | 105 | 64 | 37 | 23 | 4 | 53 | 42 | 10 | 0.69 |
Singh, 2014 | Asian | 313 | 139 | 91 | 44 | 4 | 228 | 78 | 7 | 0.91 |
Singh, 2015 | Asian | 147 | 451 | 312 | 125 | 14 | 107 | 35 | 5 | 0.32 |
Overall, eleven studies provided 1676/1594 cases/controls for MTHFR C677T polymorphism. The prevalence of C and T alleles in AD cases was 71.22% and 28.79% respectively. The percentage frequency of TT genotype among cases and controls was 9.43% and 12.98%, respectively whereas prevalence of CT heterozygote among AD cases was 38.72% and 39.21% in controls. The prevalence of CC homozygote among AD cases and controls was 51.85% and 47.80%, respectively. Genotypes were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in all controls. In control group the percentage of C and T allele frequencies was 67.41% and 32.59% respectively (Figure 2).
No significant association was observed between the MTHFR C677T polymorphism and the susceptibility to AD in all the genetic models using random effect model (for T vs. C (allele contrast): OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.88–1.24; CT vs. CC (co-dominant): OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.62–1.68; for TT+CT vs. CC (dominant): OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.94–1.29; for TT vs. CC (homozygote): OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.66–1.51; for TT vs. CT + CC (recessive): OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.66–1.40) (Table 2; Figures 3).
A true heterogeneity existed between studies for allele contrast (Pheterogeneity = 0.02, Q = 20.64, I2 = 51.56%, t2 = 0.04, z = 0.69), co-dominant genotype (Pheterogeneity < 0.0001, Q = 86.64, I2 = 88.46%, t2 = 0.61, z = 4.29), homozygote genotype (Pheterogeneity = 0.02, Q = 20.93, I2 = 52.24%, t2 = 0.24, z = 0.1), and recessive genotype (Pheterogeneity = 0.02, Q = 21.00, I2 = 52.40%, t2 = 0.20, z = 0.47) comparisons. The “I2” value of more than 50% shows high level of true heterogeneity.
Genetic Models | Fixed effect OR (95% CI), p | Random effect OR (95% CI), p | Heterogeneity p-value (Q test) | I2 (%) | Publication Bias (p of Egger's test) |
Allele Contrast (T vs. C) | 1.04 (0.92–1.17), 0.48 | 1.04 (0.88–1.24), 0.60 | 0.02 | 51.56 | 0.62 |
Dominant (TT+CT vs. CC) | 1.41 (1.20–1.65), <0.0001 | 1.02 (0.62–1.68), 0.92 | <0.0001 | 88.46 | 0.06 |
Homozygote (TT vs. CC) | 0.98 (0.75–1.29), 0.92 | 1.01 (0.66–1.51), 0.97 | 0.02 | 52.24 | 0.26 |
Co-dominant (CT vs. CC) | 1.10 (0.94–1.29), 0.21 | 1.10 (0.94–1.29), 0.21 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.48 |
Recessive (CC+CT vs. TT) | 0.94 (0.73–1.20), 0.63 | 0.97 (0.66–1.40), 0.86 | 0.02 | 52.4 | 0.28 |
Out of 11 studies included in the present meta-analysis, 3 studies were carried out in Asian countries, and 8 studies were carried out on Caucasian (Table 1). The subetaoup analysis by ethnicity did not reveal any significant association between MTHFR C677T polymorphism and AD in Asian population (T vs. C: OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.93–1.44; p = 0.17; I2 = 3.1%; Pheterogeneity = 0.65; TT vs. CC: OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.62–2.02; p = 0.69; I2 = 3.1%; Pheterogeneity = 0.89; and TT+CT vs. CC: OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.96–1.67; p = 0.09; I2 = 3.1%; Pheterogeneity = 0.81); and Caucasian population (T vs. C: OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.86–1.14; p = 0.93; I2 = 61.75%; Pheterogeneity = 0.01; TT vs. CC: OR= 0.95; 95% CI = 0.70–1.29; p = 0.75; I2 = 65.63%; Pheterogeneity = 0.004; and TT+CT vs. CC: OR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.85–1.25; p = 0.75; I2 = 13.93%; Pheterogeneity = 0.32) (Figures 4 and 5).
Symmetrical shape of Funnel plots' revealed absence of publication bias. P values of Egger's test were more than 0.05, also provided statistical evidence for the funnel plots' symmetry (p = 0.62 for T vs. C; p = 0.48 for TT vs. CC; p = 0.26 for CT vs. CC; p = 0.48 for TT+AC vs. CC; p = 0.28 for TT vs. CT+CC) (Table 2; Figure 6).
In vivo and in vitro studies has demonstrated that homocysteine has neurotoxic effects especially on dopamine neurons of reward pathway [11]. In addition, hyperhomocysteinemia is also reported in AD [11],[41]. In MTHFR gene several polymorphisms are reported but according to deficit hypothesis of addiction, only C677T polymorphism-dependent alteration of the reward system possibly leads to alcohol addiction. Further, homovanillic acid (HVA) is a potential indicator of central dopaminergic neuronal activity [42] and experimentally, it was demonstrated that higher concentration of homocysteine lowers the level of HVA in rat striatum region [43]. On the basis of 11 studies providing data on MTHFR C677T genotype and AD risk in two ethnic populations, including over 3,205 subjects, our meta-analysis provides an evidence that TT and CT genotypes or T allele are not associated with AD risk. Hence the present meta-analysis indicated that C677T is not a risk factor of AD.
Meta-analysis is a statistical tool to combine the information of independent case-control studies with similar target [44]. Several meta-analysis are published, which evaluated effects of folate pathway genes polymorphisms in susceptibility of diseases/disorders- cleft lip and palate [45], down syndrome [46]–[48], male infertility [49], bipolar disorder [50], schizophrenia [51],[52], depression [53], obsessive compulsive disorder [54], hyperurecemia [55], epilepsy [56], Alzheimers disease [57], esophageal cancer [58], and ovary cancer [59].
Several limitations that should be acknowledged like (i) calculated crude Odds ratio, (ii) included the less number of available studies (10 studies) and the limited sample size of each included study, (iii) observed higher between study heterogeneity, (iv) considered only one gene polymorphism and (v) not considered other confounding factors like diet, gender etc. In addition to limitations, current meta-analysis has several strength also such as—higher study power and larger sample size in comparison to individual case control studies, and absence of publication bias etc.
In conclusion, pooled analysis of data from 11 separate articles indicates that the MTHFR 677TT genotype is not a risk factor for AD. The results of present meta-analysis should be interpreted with certain cautions due to presence of higher heterogeneity and small number of included studies. Future large-scale, population-based association studies from different regions of the world are required to investigate potential gene-gene and gene-environment interactions involving the MTHFR C677T polymorphism in determining AD risk.
[1] |
L. Caffarelli, A. Vasseur, Drift diffusion equations with fractional diffusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation, Ann. Math., 171 (2010), 1903–1930. https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2010.171.1903 doi: 10.4007/annals.2010.171.1903
![]() |
[2] | S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas, O. I. Marichev, Fractional Integrals and Derivatives, Theory and Applications, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Minsk, 1993. |
[3] | I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations, Academic Press, San Diego, 1999. |
[4] |
M. A. Zaky, A. S. Hendy, A. A. Alikhanov, V. G. Pimenov, Numerical analysis of multi-term time-fractional nonlinear subdiffusion equations with time delay: What could possibly go wrong?, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 96 (2021), 105672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2020.105672 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2020.105672
![]() |
[5] |
X. Gu, S. Wu, A parallel-in-time iterative algorithm for Volterra partial integro-differential problems with weakly singular kernel, J. Comput. Phys., 417 (2020), 109576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109576 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109576
![]() |
[6] |
A. S. Hendy, M. A. Zaky, R. M. Hafez, R. H. De Staelen, The impact of memory effect on space fractional strong quantum couplers with tunable decay behavior and its numerical simulation, Sci. Rep., 1 (2021), 10275. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89701-7 doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89701-7
![]() |
[7] |
S. Nandal, M. A. Zaky, R. H. De Staelen, A. S. Hendy, Numerical simulation for a multidimensional fourth-order nonlinear fractional subdiffusion model with time delay, Mathmatics, 9 (2021), 3050. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9233050 doi: 10.3390/math9233050
![]() |
[8] |
A. V. Milovanov, J. J. Rasmussen, Fractional generalization of the Ginzburg-Landau equation: An unconventional approach to critical phenomena in complex media, Phys. Lett. A, 337 (2005), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2005.01.047 doi: 10.1016/j.physleta.2005.01.047
![]() |
[9] |
X. Pu, B. Guo, Well-posedness and dynamics for the fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, Appl. Anal., 92 (2013), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036811.2011.614601 doi: 10.1080/00036811.2011.614601
![]() |
[10] |
B. Guo, Z. Huo, Well-posedness for the nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equation and inviscid limit behavior of solution for the fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., 16 (2013), 226–242. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13540-013-0014-y doi: 10.2478/s13540-013-0014-y
![]() |
[11] |
H. Lu, S. Lü, Z. Feng, Asymptotic dynamics of 2D fractional complex Ginzburg-Landau equation, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos, 23 (2013), 1350202. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127413502027 doi: 10.1142/S0218127413502027
![]() |
[12] |
T. Shen, J. Xin, J. Huang, Time-space fractional stochastic Ginzburg-Landau equation driven by Gaussian white noise, Stoch. Anal. Appl, 36 (2018), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/07362994.2017.1372783 doi: 10.1080/07362994.2017.1372783
![]() |
[13] |
P. Xu, G. Zou, J. Huang, Time-space fractional stochastic Ginzburg-Landau equation driven by fractional Brownian motion, Comput. Math. Appl., 78 (2019), 3790–3806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2019.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2019.06.004
![]() |
[14] |
Q. Du, M. Gunzburger, R. Lehoucq, K. Zhou, Analysis and approximation of nonlocal diffusion problems with volume constraints, SIAM Rev., 54 (2012), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1137/110833294 doi: 10.1137/110833294
![]() |
[15] |
O. Defterli, M. D'Elia, Q. Du, M. Gunzburger, R. Lehoucq, M. M. Meerschaert, Fractional diffusion on bounded domains, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., 18 (2015), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1515/fca-2015-0023 doi: 10.1515/fca-2015-0023
![]() |
[16] |
A. Mvogo, A. Tambue, G. Ben-Bolie, T. Kofane, Localized numerical impulse solutions in diffuse neural networks modeled by the complex fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 39 (2016), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2016.03.008
![]() |
[17] |
D. He, K. Pan, An unconditionally stable linearized difference scheme for the fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, Numer. Algor., 79 (2018), 899–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-017-0466-y doi: 10.1007/s11075-017-0466-y
![]() |
[18] |
P. Wang, C. Huang, An efficient fourth-order in space difference scheme for the nonlinear fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, BIT, 58 (2018), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10543-018-0698-9 doi: 10.1007/s10543-018-0698-9
![]() |
[19] |
Q. Zhang, X. Lin, K. Pan, Y. Ren, Linearized ADI schemes for two-dimensional space-fractional nonlinear Ginzburg-Landau equation, Comput. Math. Appl., 80 (2020), 1201–1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2020.05.027 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.05.027
![]() |
[20] |
Y. Zhao, A. Ostermann, X. Gu, A low-rank Lie-Trotter splitting approach for nonlinear fractional complex Ginzburg-Landau equations, J. Comput. Phys., 446 (2021), 110652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110652 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110652
![]() |
[21] |
Q. Zhang, J. S. Hesthaven, Z. Sun, Y. Ren, Pointwise error estimate in difference setting for the two-dimensional nonlinear fractional complex Ginzburg-Landau equation, Adv. Comput. Math., 47 (2021), 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-021-09862-x doi: 10.1007/s10444-021-09862-x
![]() |
[22] |
Q. Zhang, L. Zhang, H. Sun, A three-level finite difference method with preconditioning technique for two-dimensional nonlinear fractional complex Ginzburg-Landau equations, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 389 (2021), 113355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2020.113355 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2020.113355
![]() |
[23] |
W. Zeng, A. Xiao, X. Li, Error estimate of Fourier pseudo-spectral method for multidimensional nonlinear complex fractional Ginzburg-Landau equations, Appl. Math. Lett., 93 (2019), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2019.01.041 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2019.01.041
![]() |
[24] |
M. Fei, C. Huang, N. Wang, G. Zhang, Galerkin-Legendre spectral method for the nonlinear Ginzburg-Landau equation with the Riesz fractional derivative, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 44 (2021), 2711–2730. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.5852 doi: 10.1002/mma.5852
![]() |
[25] |
M. Li, C. Huang, N. Wang, Galerkin finite element method for the nonlinear fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, Appl. Numer. Math., 118 (2017), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2017.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2017.03.003
![]() |
[26] |
Q. Du, M. D. Gunzburger, J. S. Peterson, Analysis and approximation of the Ginzburg-Landau model of superconductivity, SIAM Rev., 34 (1992), 54–81. https://doi.org/10.1137/1034003 doi: 10.1137/1034003
![]() |
[27] |
P. Degond, S. Jin, M. Tang, On the time splitting spectral method for the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation in the large time and space scale limit, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 30 (2008), 2466–2487. https://doi.org/10.1137/070700711 doi: 10.1137/070700711
![]() |
[28] |
D. Li, J. Wang, J. Zhang, Unconditionally convergent L1-Galerkin FEMs for nonlinear time-fractional Schrödinger equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 39 (2017), A3067–A3088. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1105700 doi: 10.1137/16M1105700
![]() |
[29] |
P. Wang, C. Huang, An energy conservative difference scheme for the nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equations, J. Comput. Phys., 293 (2015), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.037 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.037
![]() |
[30] |
P. Castillo, S. Gómez, On the conservation of fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation's invariants by the local discontinuous Galerkin method, J. Sci. Comput., 77 (2018), 1444–1467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-018-0708-8 doi: 10.1007/s10915-018-0708-8
![]() |
[31] |
B. Yin, J. Wang, Y. Liu, H. Li, A structure preserving difference scheme with fast algorithms for high dimensional nonlinear space-fractional Schrödinger equations, J. Comput. Phys., 425 (2021), 109869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109869 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109869
![]() |
[32] | M. A. Zaky, A. S. Hendy, J. E. Macías-Díaz, High-order finite difference/spectral-Galerkin approximations for the nonlinear time-space fractional Ginzburg-Landau equation, Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equations, (2006) https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22630. |
[33] |
M. A. Zaky, A. S. Hendy, R. H. De Staelen, Alikhanov Legendre-Galerkin spectral method for the coupled nonlinear time-space fractional Ginzburg-Landau complex system, Mathematics, 9 (2021), 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9020183 doi: 10.3390/math9020183
![]() |
[34] |
P. Zhuang, F. Liu, Implicit difference approximation for the time fractional diffusion equation, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 22 (2006), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832039 doi: 10.1007/BF02832039
![]() |
[35] |
G. Gao, Z. Sun, H. Zhang, A new fractional numerical differentiation formula to approximate the Caputo fractional derivative and its applications, J. Comput. Phys., 259 (2014), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.11.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.11.017
![]() |
[36] |
A. A. Alikhanov, A new difference scheme for the time fractional diffusion equation, J. Comput. Phys., 280 (2015), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.09.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.09.031
![]() |
[37] |
H. Li, J. Cao, C. Li, High-order approximation to Caputo derivatives and Caputo-type advection-diffusion equations (Ⅲ), J. Comput. Appl. Math., 299 (2016), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2015.11.037 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2015.11.037
![]() |
[38] |
H. Ding, The development of higher-order numerical differential formulas of Caputo derivative and their applications (Ⅰ), Comput. Math. Appl., 84 (2021), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2020.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.12.017
![]() |
[39] |
H. Ding, C. Li, Y. Chen, High-order algorithms for Riesz derivative and their applications (Ⅰ), Abstr. Appl. Anal., 2014 (2014), 653797. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/653797 doi: 10.1155/2014/653797
![]() |
[40] |
H. Ding, C. Li, Y. Chen, High-order algorithms for Riesz derivative and their applications (Ⅱ), J. Comput. Phys., 293 (2015), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.06.007
![]() |
[41] |
H. Ding, C. Li, High-order algorithms for Riesz derivative and their applications (Ⅴ), Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equations, 33 (2017), 1754–1794. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22169 doi: 10.1002/num.22169
![]() |
[42] |
H. Ding, C. Li, High-order algorithms for Riesz derivative and their applications (Ⅳ), Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., 6 (2019), 1537–1560. https://doi.org/10.1515/fca-2019-0080 doi: 10.1515/fca-2019-0080
![]() |
[43] |
H. Ding, Q. Yi, The construction of higher-order numerical approximation formula for Riesz derivative and its application to nonlinear fractional differential equations (Ⅰ), Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 110 (2022), 106394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106394 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106394
![]() |
[44] |
C. Çelik, M. Duman, Crank-Nicolson method for the fractional diffusion equation with the Riesz fractional derivative, J. Comput. Phys., 231 (2012), 1743–1750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.11.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.11.008
![]() |
[45] |
K. Kirkpatrick, E. Lenzmann, G. Staffilani, On the continuum limit for discrete NLS with long-range lattice interactions, Comm. Math. Phys., 317 (2013), 563–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-012-1621-x doi: 10.1007/s00220-012-1621-x
![]() |
[46] |
J. Wang, High-order conservative schemes for the space fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Appl. Numer. Math., 165 (2021), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2021.02.017 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2021.02.017
![]() |
[47] |
H. Sun, Z. Sun, G. Gao, Some high order difference schemes for the space and time fractional Bloch-Torrey equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 281 (2016), 356–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2016.01.044 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2016.01.044
![]() |
[48] |
D. Wang, A. Xiao, W. Yang, Maximum-norm error analysis of a difference scheme for the space fractional CNLS, Appl. Math. Comput., 257 (2015), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.11.026 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.11.026
![]() |
[49] |
Y. Wang, G. Wang, L. Bu, L. Mei, Two second-order and linear numerical schemes for the multi-dimensional nonlinear time-fractional Schrödinger equation, Numer. Algor., 88 (2021), 419–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-020-01044-y doi: 10.1007/s11075-020-01044-y
![]() |
[50] |
H. Liao, W. McLean, J. Zhang, A discrete Grönwall inequality with applications to numerical schemes for subdiffusion problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 57 (2019), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1175742 doi: 10.1137/16M1175742
![]() |
[51] |
J. E. Macías-Díaz, On the solution of a Riesz space-fractional nonlinear wave equation through an efficient and energy-invariant scheme, Int. J. Comput. Math., 96 (2019), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2018.1438605 doi: 10.1080/00207160.2018.1438605
![]() |
Study | Ethnicity | Control | Case | Case Genotype |
Control Genotype |
HWE p-value of controls | ||||
CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | |||||
Bonsch, 2006 | Caucasian | 115 | 134 | 64 | 56 | 14 | 60 | 41 | 14 | 0.10 |
Lutz, 2006 | Caucasian | 102 | 221 | 95 | 94 | 32 | 53 | 41 | 8 | 0.98 |
Lutz, 2007 | Caucasian | 101 | 142 | 65 | 58 | 19 | 53 | 40 | 8 | 0.90 |
Saffroy, 2008 | Caucasian | 93 | 242 | 108 | 113 | 21 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 0.41 |
Benyamina, 2009 | Caucasian | 93 | 120 | 56 | 53 | 11 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 0.41 |
Fabris, 2009 | Caucasian | 236 | 63 | 17 | 35 | 11 | 69 | 113 | 54 | 0.55 |
Shin, 2010 | Asian | 232 | 68 | 11 | 39 | 18 | 42 | 129 | 61 | 0.07 |
Supic, 2010, Heavy Alcoholic | Caucasian | 57 | 32 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 27 | 24 | 6 | 0.84 |
Supic, 2010, Non heavy Alcoholic | Caucasian | 105 | 64 | 37 | 23 | 4 | 53 | 42 | 10 | 0.69 |
Singh, 2014 | Asian | 313 | 139 | 91 | 44 | 4 | 228 | 78 | 7 | 0.91 |
Singh, 2015 | Asian | 147 | 451 | 312 | 125 | 14 | 107 | 35 | 5 | 0.32 |
Genetic Models | Fixed effect OR (95% CI), p | Random effect OR (95% CI), p | Heterogeneity p-value (Q test) | I2 (%) | Publication Bias (p of Egger's test) |
Allele Contrast (T vs. C) | 1.04 (0.92–1.17), 0.48 | 1.04 (0.88–1.24), 0.60 | 0.02 | 51.56 | 0.62 |
Dominant (TT+CT vs. CC) | 1.41 (1.20–1.65), <0.0001 | 1.02 (0.62–1.68), 0.92 | <0.0001 | 88.46 | 0.06 |
Homozygote (TT vs. CC) | 0.98 (0.75–1.29), 0.92 | 1.01 (0.66–1.51), 0.97 | 0.02 | 52.24 | 0.26 |
Co-dominant (CT vs. CC) | 1.10 (0.94–1.29), 0.21 | 1.10 (0.94–1.29), 0.21 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.48 |
Recessive (CC+CT vs. TT) | 0.94 (0.73–1.20), 0.63 | 0.97 (0.66–1.40), 0.86 | 0.02 | 52.4 | 0.28 |
Study | Ethnicity | Control | Case | Case Genotype |
Control Genotype |
HWE p-value of controls | ||||
CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | |||||
Bonsch, 2006 | Caucasian | 115 | 134 | 64 | 56 | 14 | 60 | 41 | 14 | 0.10 |
Lutz, 2006 | Caucasian | 102 | 221 | 95 | 94 | 32 | 53 | 41 | 8 | 0.98 |
Lutz, 2007 | Caucasian | 101 | 142 | 65 | 58 | 19 | 53 | 40 | 8 | 0.90 |
Saffroy, 2008 | Caucasian | 93 | 242 | 108 | 113 | 21 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 0.41 |
Benyamina, 2009 | Caucasian | 93 | 120 | 56 | 53 | 11 | 35 | 41 | 17 | 0.41 |
Fabris, 2009 | Caucasian | 236 | 63 | 17 | 35 | 11 | 69 | 113 | 54 | 0.55 |
Shin, 2010 | Asian | 232 | 68 | 11 | 39 | 18 | 42 | 129 | 61 | 0.07 |
Supic, 2010, Heavy Alcoholic | Caucasian | 57 | 32 | 13 | 9 | 10 | 27 | 24 | 6 | 0.84 |
Supic, 2010, Non heavy Alcoholic | Caucasian | 105 | 64 | 37 | 23 | 4 | 53 | 42 | 10 | 0.69 |
Singh, 2014 | Asian | 313 | 139 | 91 | 44 | 4 | 228 | 78 | 7 | 0.91 |
Singh, 2015 | Asian | 147 | 451 | 312 | 125 | 14 | 107 | 35 | 5 | 0.32 |
Genetic Models | Fixed effect OR (95% CI), p | Random effect OR (95% CI), p | Heterogeneity p-value (Q test) | I2 (%) | Publication Bias (p of Egger's test) |
Allele Contrast (T vs. C) | 1.04 (0.92–1.17), 0.48 | 1.04 (0.88–1.24), 0.60 | 0.02 | 51.56 | 0.62 |
Dominant (TT+CT vs. CC) | 1.41 (1.20–1.65), <0.0001 | 1.02 (0.62–1.68), 0.92 | <0.0001 | 88.46 | 0.06 |
Homozygote (TT vs. CC) | 0.98 (0.75–1.29), 0.92 | 1.01 (0.66–1.51), 0.97 | 0.02 | 52.24 | 0.26 |
Co-dominant (CT vs. CC) | 1.10 (0.94–1.29), 0.21 | 1.10 (0.94–1.29), 0.21 | 0.43 | 0 | 0.48 |
Recessive (CC+CT vs. TT) | 0.94 (0.73–1.20), 0.63 | 0.97 (0.66–1.40), 0.86 | 0.02 | 52.4 | 0.28 |