Leveling the Playing Field in Homozygosity Mapping Using Map Distances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Studies of linkage disequilibrium (LD) and its variation in the genome are of central importance for understanding evolutionary history, population structure, and selective sweeps. Extreme forms of the latter may result in runs of homozygosity (ROH). In human gene mapping, long ROHs are the basis for homozygosity mapping (HM) with length measured in terms of Mb (10 6 base pairs physical distance). LD varies greatly over the human genome so that long ROHs tend to occur preferentially in regions of high LD and ROHs of the same length in different regions are not strictly comparable. Thus, in human gene mapping, LD appears as a confounder that needs to be taken into account in the interpretation of ROHs. The effect of varying LD can be mitigated by working on a scale of centimorgans (cM, genetic distance) instead of Mb. We demonstrate this effect for HapMap 3 data on chromosome 19 and show examples with different ROH lengths depending on whether physical or genetic lengths are used. These results suggest that HM should preferably be done on genetic rather than physical distances.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".