Review of statistical methodologies for the detection of parent-of-origin effects in family trio genome-wide association data with binary disease traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of parent-of-origin effects aims to identify whether the functionality of alleles, and in turn associated phenotypic traits, depends on the parental origin of the alleles. Different parent-of-origin effects have been identified through a variety of mechanisms and a number of statistical methodologies for their detection have been proposed, in particular for genome-wide association studies (GWAS). GWAS have had limited success in explaining the heritability of many complex disorders and traits, but successful identification of parent-of-origin effects using trio (mother, father and offspring) GWAS may help shed light on this missing heritability. However, it is important to choose the most appropriate parent-of-origin test or methodology, given knowledge of the phenotype, amount of available data and the type of parent-of-origin effect(s) being considered. This review brings together the parent-of-origin detection methodologies available, comparing them in terms of power and type I error for a number of different simulated data scenarios, and finally offering guidance as to the most appropriate choice for the different scenarios.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".