Identifying SNPs predictive of phenotype using random forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a great interest and a few successes in the identification of complex disease susceptibility genes in recent years. Association studies, where a large number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are typed in a sample of cases and controls to determine which genes are associated with a specific disease, provide a powerful approach for complex disease gene mapping. Genes of interest in those studies may contain large numbers of SNPs that classical statistical methods cannot handle simultaneously without requiring prohibitively large sample sizes. By contrast, high-dimensional nonparametric methods thrive on large numbers of predictors. This work explores the application of one such method, random forests, to the problem of identifying SNPs predictive of the phenotype in the case-control study design. A random forest is a collection of classification trees grown on bootstrap samples of observations, using a random subset of predictors to define the best split at each node. The observations left out of the bootstrap samples are used to estimate prediction error. The importance of a predictor is quantified by the increase in misclassification occurring when the values of the predictor are randomly permuted. We extend the concept of importance to pairs of predictors, to capture joint effects, and we explore the behavior of importance measures over a range of two-locus disease models in the presence of a varying number of SNPs unassociated with the phenotype. We illustrate the application of random forests with a data set of asthma cases and unaffected controls genotyped at 42 SNPs in ADAM33, a previously identified asthma susceptibility gene. SNPs and SNP pairs highly associated with asthma tend to have the highest importance index value, but predictive importance and association do not always coincide.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".