SBERIA: Set‐Based Gene‐Environment Interaction Test for Rare and Common Variants in Complex Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of gene-environment interaction (G × E) is important in understanding the etiology of complex diseases. However, partially due to the lack of power, there have been very few replicated G × E findings compared to the success in marginal association studies. The existing G × E testing methods mainly focus on improving the power for individual markers. In this paper, we took a different strategy and proposed a set-based gene-environment interaction test (SBERIA), which can improve the power by reducing the multiple testing burdens and aggregating signals within a set. The major challenge of the signal aggregation within a set is how to tell signals from noise and how to determine the direction of the signals. SBERIA takes advantage of the established correlation screening for G × E to guide the aggregation of genotypes within a marker set. The correlation screening has been shown to be an efficient way of selecting potential G × E candidate SNPs in case-control studies for complex diseases. Importantly, the correlation screening in case-control combined samples is independent of the interaction test. With this desirable feature, SBERIA maintains the correct type I error level and can be easily implemented in a regular logistic regression setting. We showed that SBERIA had higher power than benchmark methods in various simulation scenarios, both for common and rare variants. We also applied SBERIA to real genome-wide association studies (GWAS) data of 10,729 colorectal cancer cases and 13,328 controls and found evidence of interaction between the set of known colorectal cancer susceptibility loci and smoking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".