Locus-Specific Heritability Estimation via the Bootstrap in Linkage Scans for Quantitative Trait Loci
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In genome-wide linkage analysis of quantitative trait loci (QTL), locus-specific heritability estimates are biased when the original data are used to both localize linkage and estimate effects, due to maximization of the LOD score over the genome. Positive bias is increased by adoption of stringent significance levels to control genome-wide type I error. We propose multi-locus bootstrap resampling estimators for bias reduction in the situation in which linkage peaks at more than one QTL are of interest. METHODS: Bootstrap estimates were based on repeated sample splitting in the original dataset. We conducted simulation studies in nuclear families with 0 to 5 QTLs and applied the methods in a genome-wide analysis of a blood pressure phenotype in extended pedigrees from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS). RESULTS: Compared to naïve estimates in the original simulation samples, bootstrap estimates had reduced bias and smaller mean squared error. In the FHS pedigrees, the bootstrap yielded heritability estimates as much as 70% smaller than in the original sample. CONCLUSIONS: Because effect estimates obtained in an initial study are typically inflated relative to those expected in an independent replication study, successful replication will be more likely when sample size requirements are based on bias-reduced estimates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it