Estimating Interaction Between Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large prospective cohorts originally assembled to study environmental risk factors are increasingly exploited to study gene-environment interactions. Given the cost of genetic studies in large samples, being able to select a subsample for genotyping that contains most of the information from the cohort would lead to substantial savings. We consider nested case-control and case-cohort sampling designs with and without stratification and compare their efficiency relative to the entire cohort for estimating the effects of genetic and environmental risk factors and their interactions. Asymptotic calculations show that the relative efficiency of the case-cohort and nested case-control designs implementing the same sampling stratification are similar over a range of scenarios for the relationships among genes, environmental exposures, and disease status. Sampling equal numbers of exposed and unexposed subjects improves efficiency when the exposure is rare. The case-cohort designs had a slight advantage in simulations of sampling designs within the Framingham Offspring Study, using the interaction between apolipoprotein E and smoking on the risk of coronary heart disease as an example. It was possible to estimate the interaction effect with precision close to that of the full cohort when using case-cohort or nested case-control samples containing fewer than half the subjects of the cohort.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".