The Power and Robustness of Maximum LOD Score Statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maximum LOD score statistic is extremely powerful for gene mapping when calculated using the correct genetic parameter value. When the mode of genetic transmission is unknown, the maximum of the LOD scores obtained using several genetic parameter values is reported. This latter statistic requires higher critical value than the maximum LOD score statistic calculated from a single genetic parameter value. In this paper, we compare the power of maximum LOD scores based on three fixed sets of genetic parameter values with the power of the LOD score obtained after maximizing over the entire range of genetic parameter values. We simulate family data under nine generating models. For generating models with non-zero phenocopy rates, LOD scores maximized over the entire range of genetic parameters yielded greater power than maximum LOD scores for fixed sets of parameter values with zero phenocopy rates. No maximum LOD score was consistently more powerful than the others for generating models with a zero phenocopy rate. The power loss of the LOD score maximized over the entire range of genetic parameters, relative to the maximum LOD score calculated using the correct genetic parameter value, appeared to be robust to the generating models.
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 | 0.142 | 0.523 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".