Fine mapping by linkage and association in nuclear family and case-control designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report summarizes the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 contributions related to fine-mapping strategies, in which examining smaller regions by association with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can yield savings in genotyping and multiple-testing penalties. The aim of the analyses conducted in Group 7 contributions was to localize disease susceptibility loci from either the simulated or the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) data within identified regions of linkage. Among the 10 contributions, most groups analyzed the simulated data, one group analyzed the COGA data only, and one group analyzed both data sets. The research questions included evaluation of new methods of analysis, as well as comparisons among alternative methods, analytic strategies, and study designs. Methods of interest included an algorithm for SNP marker ordering, a locally weighted transmission disequilibrium test statistic, a likelihood-ratio test statistic for family-based association in nuclear families, a robust test statistic for case-control association studies, and Bayesian spatial modeling methods for haplotype clustering and association. Evaluations included comparisons among confidence intervals for loci detected via linkage, effects of multiple testing adjustments and trade-offs between type I error and power, comparisons among haplotype-based (multilocus) and genotype-based (multilocus and single-locus) association analyses, and design of fine-mapping and replication studies. While several promising new approaches were identified, further development and evaluation of methods for multiple testing, regression modeling of association with multiple markers and haplotypes, and combined treatment of linkage and association data are necessary if we are to identify many of the genes that contribute to complex traits.
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 | 0.208 | 0.383 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".