Application of bivariate mixed counting process models to genetic analysis of rheumatoid arthritis severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to i) identify putative genetic determinants of the severity of rheumatoid arthritis in the NARAC (North American Rheumatoid Arthritis Consortium) data, ii) assess whether known candidate genes for disease status are also associated with disease severity in those affected, and iii) determine whether heterogeneity among the severity phenotypes can be explained by genetic and/or host factors. These questions are addressed by developing bivariate mixed-counting process models for numbers of tender and swollen joints to evaluate genetic association of candidate polymorphisms, such as DRB1, and selected single-nucleotide polymorphisms in known candidate genes/regions for rheumatoid arthritis, including PTPN22, and those in the regions identified by a genome-wide linkage scan of disease severity using the dense Illumina single-nucleotide polymorphism panel. The counting process framework provides a flexible approach to account for the duration of rheumatoid arthritis, an attractive feature when modeling severity of a disease. Moreover, we found a gain in efficiency when using a bivariate compared to a univariate counting process model.
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 | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".