Drinking From the Holy Grail: Analysis of Whole‐Genome Sequencing From the Genetic Analysis Workshop 18
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Genetic Analysis Workshops distribute real and simulated human genetic data to allow the development and comparison of methods to detect genetic variants and genes related to biological traits; the results are then presented and discussed at a biennial meeting. The data made available for Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 (GAW18) included whole-genome sequence data for odd-numbered autosomes from 20 large Mexican American pedigrees selected through probands with type 2 diabetes. Real and simulated blood pressure phenotype data were provided to allow the comparison of methods to detect variants and genes associated with blood pressure. Some of the complexity present in the data includes related individuals, repeated quantitative trait outcomes, covariates, medication effects, pharmacokinetic effects, missing data, admixed population, and imputed genotypes. A wide range of analytic approaches were applied to the data. Contributions that focused only on a subset of up to 155 unrelated subjects from the pedigrees were faced with low power. One recommendation for future analysis is the use of the provided null phenotype to allow comparison of type I error across methods. Collaboration between statistical geneticists and molecular biologists or bioinformaticians would provide helpful input to place variants in genes for gene-based association tests.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.012 |
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".