MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generalized marker regression and interval QTL mapping methods for binary traits in half‐sib family designs

2001· article· en· W2050208295 on OpenAlex
Haja N. Kadarmideen, Jack C. M. Dekkers

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State UniversityIowa State University
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusInclusive composite interval mappingFamily-based QTL mappingThreshold modelLinear regressionPedigree chartBinary numberRegressionStatisticsBiologyGeneticsMathematicsGene mappingChromosomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it