A likelihood ratio test for goodness‐of‐fit of recessive and dominant models for case–control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Testing goodness‐of‐fit of commonly used genetic models is of critical importance in many applications including association studies and testing for departure from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. Case–control design has become widely used in population genetics and genetic epidemiology, thus it is of interest to develop powerful goodness‐of‐fit tests for genetic models using case–control data. This paper develops a likelihood ratio test (LRT) for testing recessive and dominant models for case–control studies. The LRT statistic has a closed‐form formula with a simple $\chi^{2}(1)$ null asymptotic distribution, thus its implementation is easy even for genome‐wide association studies. Moreover, it has the same power and optimality as when the disease prevalence is known in the population. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 341–352; 2013 © 2013 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.089 | 0.392 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".