MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981086785 · doi:10.1086/303072

Multipoint Genetic Mapping with Uniparental Disomy Data

2000· article· en· W1981086785 on OpenAlexaff
Hongyu Zhao, Jinming Li, Wendy P. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Human Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthMarch of Dimes Foundation
KeywordsCrossoverUniparental disomyNondisjunctionInternational HapMap ProjectGeneticsChromosomeComputer scienceGenetic algorithmSet (abstract data type)Computational biologyData miningBiologyAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSingle-nucleotide polymorphismAneuploidyGenotypeGeneKaryotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uniparental disomy (UPD) refers to the presence of two copies of a chromosome from one parent and none from the other parent. In genetic studies of UPDs, many genetic markers are usually used to identify the stage of nondisjunction that leads to UPD and to uncover the associated unusual patterns of recombinations. However, genetic information in such data has not been fully utilized because of the limitations of the existing statistical methods for UPD data. In the present article, we develop a multilocus statistical approach that has the advantages of being able to simultaneously consider all genetic markers for all individuals in the same analysis and to allow general models for the crossover process to incorporate crossover interference. In particular, for a general crossover-process model that assumes only that there exists in each interval at most one crossover, we describe how to use the expectation-maximization algorithm to examine the probability distribution of the recombination events underlying meioses leading to UPD. We can also use this flexible approach to create genetic maps based on UPD data and to inspect recombination differences between meioses exhibiting UPD and normal meioses. The proposed method has been implemented in a computer program, and we illustrate the proposed approach through its application to a set of UPD15 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207