Causal Models for Investigating Complex Genetic Disease: II. What Causal Models Can Tell Us about Penetrance for Additive, Heterogeneity, and Multiplicative Two-Locus Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Statistical geneticists commonly use certain two-locus penetrance models because these models are familiar and mathematically tractable. We investigate whether and under what circumstances these two-locus penetrance models correspond to models of causation. METHODS: We describe a sufficient component cause model for a hypothetical disease with two genetic causes. We then use the potential outcomes framework to determine the expected two-locus penetrances from this causal model and contrast them with commonly used two-locus penetrance models (additive, heterogeneity, and multiplicative penetrance models, as formulated by Risch [Am J Hum Genet 1990;46:222-228]). RESULTS: Conventional additive and multiplicative models can correspond to any two-locus causal model only when certain very specific algebraic relationships hold. The heterogeneity model corresponds to a two-locus causal model only if the model stipulates that no disease cases are caused by the combined presence of the causal genotypes at both loci (i.e. only when there is no causal gene-gene interaction). Hence the heterogeneity model provides a valid test of the null hypothesis of no gene-gene interaction, whereas the additive and multiplicative models do not. CONCLUSION: We suggest that causal principles should provide the basis for statistical modeling in genetics.
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 | 0.016 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".