Effects of covariates: A summary of Group 5 contributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report summarizes the contributions of Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 (GAW13) related to the use of covariates in genetic analysis. Seven papers are summarized, five of which analyzed the Framingham Heart Study Data, and two the simulated data. Five papers examined the role of covariates in linkage analysis, using a variety of statistical approaches including affected sibling pair analysis, conditional logistic regression, and variance components methods. One paper examined the impact of covariates on family-based association analysis. In each of these papers, the detection of genetic effects could be influenced by the incorporation of covariates. The final paper examined the role of transmission ratio distortion in the analysis of complex traits and the role of covariates in the variability in transmission ratio distortion. While each paper takes a different approach to the genetic analysis of complex traits, a common thread running through each is that the inclusion of covariates can have a substantial impact on the results of the analysis. Care must be taken to understand how the covariates are being used in each analysis, what assumptions are being made, and how these assumptions might affect the results and their interpretation. Finally, the results of Group 5 studies show that inclusion of covariates can increase the power to detect genes for complex traits, and has the potential to advance an understanding of the role of genes in these complex traits.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".