Gene‐ or region‐based analysis of genome‐wide association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With rapid advances in genotyping technologies in recent years and the growing number of available markers, genome-wide association studies are emerging as promising approaches for the study of complex diseases and traits. However, there are several challenges with analysis and interpretation of such data. First, there is a massive multiple testing problem, due to the large number of markers that need to be analyzed, leading to an increased risk of false positives and decreased ability for association studies to detect truly associated markers. In particular, the ability to detect modest genetic effects can be severely compromised. Second, a genetic association of a given single-nucleotide polymorphism as determined by univariate statistical analyses does not typically explain biologically interesting features, and often requires subsequent interpretation using a higher unit, such as a gene or region, for example, as defined by haplotype blocks. Third, missing genotypes in the data set and other data quality issues can pose challenges when comparisons across platforms and replications are planned. Finally, depending on the type of univariate analysis, computational burden can arise as the number of markers continues to grow into the millions. One way to deal with these and related challenges is to consider higher units for the analysis, such as genes or regions. This article summarizes analytical methods and strategies that have been proposed and applied by Group 16 to two genome-wide association data sets made available through the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".