Estimating Statistical Measures of Pleiotropic and Epistatic Effects in the Genomic Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in the technology for sequencing the genomes of various species has had a profound effect of the working paradigms of various fields of genetics. Included among these fields is the classical field of quantitative genetics, which is a subfield of statistical genetics, that is devoted to traits that can be quantified on some continuous scale and are often influenced by alleles at many loci. In recent years, many investigators have conducted genome wide sweeps and have used a variety of statistical criteria to judge whether identified regions of the human genome have a significant influence on the expression of some quantitative trait such as measurements on patients with Alzheimer's disease. From the point of view of quantitative genetics, the regions of a genome that have some influence on a quantitative trait may be viewed as loci, and variations among these loci at the $DNA$ level, such as nucleotide substitutions or other markers, may be used as working definitions of alleles, and, therefore, can be used to determine whether an individual carries a particular allele at some locus. Given such data, an investigator can identify the genotype of each individual in a study, with respect to the loci under consideration as well as the two alleles present at each locus in a diploid species such as man. This ability to use these working definitions to identify the genotype of each individual in a sample results in a significant change in the working paradigm of sub-field of quantitative genetics, called variance and covariance analysis, because effects and components of variance and covariance may be estimated directly in a sense that will be described in detail in the paper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".