Using Gene Genealogies to Detect Rare Variants Associated with Complex Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Standard population genetic theory says that deleterious genetic variants are likely rare and fairly recently introduced. However, can this expectation lead to more powerful tests of association between diseases and rare genetic variation? The gene genealogy describes the relationships between haplotypes sampled from the general population. Although ancestral tree-based methods, inspired by the gene genealogy concept, have been developed for finding associations with common genetic variants, here we ask whether gene genealogies can help in identifying genomic regions containing multiple rare causal variants. METHODS: With data simulated under several demographic models and using known gene genealogies, we developed and compared several tree-based statistics to determine which, if any, could detect the type of clustering expected with rare causal variants and whether the genealogic tree provides additional information about disease associations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We found that a novel statistic based on the scaled distance between the tips of a tree performed better than other tree-based statistics. When data were simulated with mild population growth, this statistic outperformed two standard non-tree-based methods, showing that an ancestral tree-based approach has potential for rare variant discovery.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".