Robustness of the linear mixed effects model to error distribution assumptions and the consequences for genome-wide association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies have been successful in uncovering novel genetic variants that are associated with disease status or cross-sectional phenotypic traits. Researchers are beginning to investigate how genes play a role in the development of a trait over time. Linear mixed effects models (LMM) are commonly used to model longitudinal data; however, it is unclear if the failure to meet the models distributional assumptions will affect the conclusions when conducting a genome-wide association study. In an extensive simulation study, we compare coverage probabilities, bias, type 1 error rates and statistical power when the error of the LMM is either heteroscedastic or has a non-Gaussian distribution. We conclude that the model is robust to misspecification if the same function of age is included in the fixed and random effects. However, type 1 error of the genetic effect over time is inflated, regardless of the model misspecification, if the polynomial function for age in the fixed and random effects differs. In situations where the model will not converge with a high order polynomial function in the random effects, a reduced function can be used but a robust standard error needs to be calculated to avoid inflation of the type 1 error. As an illustration, a LMM was applied to longitudinal body mass index (BMI) data over childhood in the ALSPAC cohort; the results emphasised the need for the robust standard error to ensure correct inference of associations of longitudinal BMI with chromosome 16 single nucleotide polymorphisms.
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 | 0.262 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".