MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503357936 · doi:10.1111/biom.12006

A Generalized Kruskal–Wallis Test Incorporating Group Uncertainty with Application to Genetic Association Studies

2013· article· en· W1503357936 on OpenAlexafffund
Elif F. Acar, Lei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMathematicsKruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of varianceStatisticsKruskal's algorithmTest statisticNull hypothesisGeneralizationRobustness (evolution)Pearson's chi-squared testStatisticStatistical hypothesis testingCombinatoricsMann–Whitney U testGeneticsSpanning treeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by genetic association studies of SNPs with genotype uncertainty, we propose a generalization of the Kruskal-Wallis test that incorporates group uncertainty when comparing k samples. The extended test statistic is based on probability-weighted rank-sums and follows an asymptotic chi-square distribution with k - 1 degrees of freedom under the null hypothesis. Simulation studies confirm the validity and robustness of the proposed test in finite samples. Application to a genome-wide association study of type 1 diabetic complications further demonstrates the utilities of this generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for studies with group uncertainty. The method has been implemented as an open-resource R program, GKW.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207