Design considerations for association studies of candidate genes in families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In genetic epidemiologic studies, investigators often use generalized linear models to evaluate the relationships between a disease trait and covariates, such as one or more candidate genes or an environmental exposure. Recently, attention has turned to study designs that mandate the inclusion of family members in addition to a proband. Standard models for analysis assume independent observations, which is unlikely to be true for family data, and the usual standard errors for the regression parameter estimates may be too large or too small, depending on the distribution of the covariates within and between families. The consequences of familial correlation on the study efficiency can be measured by a design effect that is equivalent to the relative information in a sample of unrelated individuals compared to a sample of families with the same number of individuals. We examine design effects for studies in association, and illustrate how the design effect is influenced by the intra-familial distribution of covariate values such as would be expected for a candidate gene. Typical design effects for a candidate gene range between 1.1 and 2.4, depending on the size of the family and the amount of unexplained familial correlation. These values correspond to a modest 10% increase in the required sample size up to more than doubling the requirements. Design effect values are useful in study design to compare the efficiency of studies that sample families versus independent individuals and to determine sample size requirements that account for familial correlation.
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 | 0.164 | 0.322 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".