Using disease symptoms to improve detection of linkage under genetic heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major reason for the slow progress in identifying susceptibility genes for complex diseases may be that the clinical diagnoses used as phenotypes are genetically heterogeneous. This has led researchers to collect various phenotypes related to the diagnosis, such as detailed symptoms, in the hope that these measurements define more homogeneous disease sub-types, influenced by a smaller number of genes that will thus be more easily detectable. Latent class analysis can be used to define disease sub-types from multivariate symptoms under the assumption that the subjects are independent, an assumption that does not hold between members of the same family. We have recently developed a latent class model allowing dependence between the latent disease class status of relatives within nuclear families. In this paper, we propose approaches to use the resulting latent class probabilities in linkage analysis. We present results from a simulation study showing that the latent class approach can provide a substantial gain in power to detect disease genes over the standard heterogeneity approach of Smith and identity-by-descent sharing methods applied to the disease diagnosis. Taking into account familial dependence in the latent class model generally provides greater power than assuming independence. In an analysis of autism symptoms in families from the Autism Genetics Research Exchange, linkage signals obtained with latent class-derived phenotypes were stronger than those obtained using the original autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.
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 | 0.028 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".