Generalized marker regression and interval QTL mapping methods for binary traits in half‐sib family designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Generalized Marker Regression Mapping (GMR) approach was developed for mapping Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) affecting binary polygenic traits in a single‐family half‐sib design. The GMR is based on threshold‐liability model theory and regression of offspring phenotype on expected marker genotypes at flanking marker loci. Using simulation, statistical power and bias of QTL mapping for binary traits by GMR was compared with full QTL interval mapping based on a threshold model (GIM) and with a linear marker regression mapping method (LMR). Empirical significance threshold values, power and estimates of QTL location and effect were identical for GIM and GMR when QTL mapping was restricted to within the marker interval. These results show that the theory of the marker regression method for QTL mapping is also applicable to binary traits and possibly for traits with other non‐normal distributions. The linear and threshold models based on marker regression (LMR and GMR) also resulted in similar estimates and power for large progeny group sizes, indicating that LMR can be used for binary data for balanced designs with large families, as this method is computationally simpler than GMR. GMR may have a greater potential than LMR for QTL mapping for binary traits in complex situations such as QTL mapping with complex pedigrees, random models and models with interactions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".