Region-based analysis in genome-wide association study of Framingham Heart Study blood lipid phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high-dimensionality of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data, region-based methods are an attractive approach to the identification of genetic variation associated with a certain phenotype. A common approach to defining regions is to identify the most significant SNPs from a single-SNP association analysis, and then use a gene database to obtain a list of genes proximal to the identified SNPs. Alternatively, regions may be defined statistically, via a scan statistic. After categorizing SNPs as significant or not (based on the single-SNP association p-values), a scan statistic is useful to identify regions that contain more significant SNPs than expected by chance. Important features of this method are that regions are defined statistically, so that there is no dependence on a gene database, and both gene and inter-gene regions can be detected. In the analysis of blood-lipid phenotypes from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS), we compared statistically defined regions with those formed from the top single SNP tests. Although we missed a number of single SNPs, we also identified many additional regions not found as SNP-database regions and avoided issues related to region definition. In addition, analyses of candidate genes for high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels suggested that associations detected with region-based statistics are also found using the scan statistic approach.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".