Applications of Machine Learning and Data Mining Methods to Detect Associations of Rare and Common Variants with Complex Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning methods (MLMs), designed to develop models using high-dimensional predictors, have been used to analyze genome-wide genetic and genomic data to predict risks for complex traits. We summarize the results from six contributions to our Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 working group; these investigators applied MLMs and data mining to analyses of rare and common genetic variants measured in pedigrees. To develop risk profiles, group members analyzed blood pressure traits along with single-nucleotide polymorphisms and rare variant genotypes derived from sequence and imputation analyses in large Mexican American pedigrees. Supervised MLMs included penalized regression with varying penalties, support vector machines, and permanental classification. Unsupervised MLMs included sparse principal components analysis and sparse graphical models. Entropy-based components analyses were also used to mine these data. None of the investigators fully capitalized on the genetic information provided by the complete pedigrees. Their approaches either corrected for the nonindependence of the individuals within the pedigrees or analyzed only those who were independent. Some methods allowed for covariate adjustment, whereas others did not. We evaluated these methods using a variety of metrics. Four contributors conducted primary analyses on the real data, and the other two research groups used the simulated data with and without knowledge of the underlying simulation model. One group used the answers to the simulated data to assess power and type I errors. Although the MLMs applied were substantially different, each research group concluded that MLMs have advantages over standard statistical approaches with these high-dimensional data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".