Tests for the presence of two linked disease susceptibility genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For diseases with complex genetic etiology, more than one susceptibility gene may exist in a single chromosomal region. Under explicit assumptions about the number of disease genes in a region, generalized estimating equations (GEE) can be used to estimate the putative disease gene location(s) and expected identical-by-descent allele sharing in affected sib pairs at these gene(s). Extending the work of Liang et al. developed a method for simultaneous localization of two susceptibility genes in one region using marker identical-by-descent (IBD) sharing in affected sib pairs. Here we propose methods to evaluate the evidence for two versus one disease loci in a region in a quasi-likelihood/GEE framework. We describe tests based on approximate quasi-likelihood ratio and generalized score test statistics. Because of difficulties in determining the asymptotic null distributions of these statistics and the small sample sizes that can be available in genetic studies, we recommend that significance be evaluated empirically. Application of the described methods to data from a genome scan for type 1 diabetes yielded some evidence for two linked disease genes on chromosome 6, approximately 20 cM apart (p value for an approximate quasi-likelihood ratio test=0.049). In simulation studies, we found that both tests performed quite well for a range of scenarios. Power to detect the presence of two linked disease genes increased with the number of affected sib pairs, greater IBD sharing at the two loci, and larger distance between the two loci.
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 | 0.019 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".