Heterogeneity in IBD Allele Sharing among Covariate-Defined Subgroups: Issues and Findings for Affected Relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Modelling of variation in identical-by-descent (IBD) allele sharing using covariates can increase power to detect linkage, identify covariate-defined subgroups linked to particular marker regions, and improve the design of subsequent studies to localize genes and characterize their effects. In this report, we highlight issues that arise in studies of families with affected relatives. METHODS: Mirea et al. [Genet Epidemiol 2003, in press] extended linear and exponential linkage likelihood models [Kong and Cox, Am J Hum Genet 1997;61: 1179-1188] to model variation in NPL scores among covariate-defined groups of families, and proposed likelihood ratio (LR) and t statistics to detect differences in allele sharing between groups defined by a binary covariate. Here we evaluate factors affecting the power of these tests analytically and by example, as well as effects of constraints, nuisance parameters, and incomplete data on test validity by simulation of locus heterogeneity in families with affected siblings or affected cousins. RESULTS: Provided constraints on the parameters are avoided, these tests are particularly useful when one subgroup has less than expected IBD sharing. The distribution of the LR statistic depends on the extent of linkage, particularly in the presence of constraints. The t statistic may be biased by group differences in information content. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that constraints be applied cautiously, and covariate effects in IBD allele sharing models interpreted with care.
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 | 0.047 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".