Evaluating outlier loci and their effect on the identification of pedigree errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Homozygosity outlier loci, which show patterns of variation that are extremely divergent from the rest of the genome, can be evaluated by comparison of the homozygosity under Hardy-Weinberg proportions (the sum of the squares of allele frequencies) with the expected homozygosity under neutrality. Such outlier loci are potentially under selection (balancing selection or directional selection) when genome-wide effects (such as bottleneck and rapid population growth) are excluded. Outlier loci show skewed allele frequencies with respect to neutrality and may therefore affect the identification of pedigree errors. However, choosing neutral markers (excluding outlier loci) for the identification of pedigree errors has been neglected thus far. Our results showed that 4.1%, 5.5%, and 1.5% of the microsatellite markers, Illumina single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and Affymetrix SNPs, respectively, on the autosomes appear to be under balancing selection (p≤ 0.01) while 0.8% of the Affymetrix SNPs are consistent with directional selection. On the X-chromosome, 7.7%, 3.2%, and 0.4% of the microsatellite markers, Illumina SNPs, and Affymetrix SNPs, respectively, appear to be under balancing selection. 9.3% of Illumina SNPs and 6.7% of Affymetrix SNPs which have high minor allele frequency (≥40%) appear to be under balancing selection. Pedigree structure errors in 15 of 143 pedigrees were detected using microsatellite markers from the autosomes and/or selected SNPs from chromosomes 1 to 18 of the Illumina and/or selected SNPs from chromosomes 1 to 16 of the Affymetrix. Outlier loci did not make a major difference to the identification of pedigree errors. The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism data has pedigree errors and some of them may be due to sample mix up.
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 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".