Estimating Disease Risk Associated with Mutated Genes in Family-Based Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many clinical decisions require accurate estimates of disease risk associated with inherited gene mutations. While several family-based designs have been proposed, their relative advantages remain unclear. METHODS: We considered four commonly-used family-based designs and evaluated their performance in terms of accuracy and efficiency under several genetic models via simulation studies. We also derived and assessed several ascertainment-corrected likelihood methods for analyzing the simulated data and real data from 12 HNPCC pedigrees from Newfoundland. RESULTS: We found that the design efficiency depends on the question of interest: the clinic-based family design with random probands yields the most efficient estimate of genetic relative risks, whereas the population-based family design with mutation carrier probands provides the most efficient penetrance estimates. For a particular question, an ascertainment correction seems possible using regular likelihood methods but the presence of genetic heterogeneity due to a strong second gene effect can lead to some bias in the risk estimation. CONCLUSIONS: This work gives a general methodological framework for analyzing family-based designs in gene characterization studies and provides more rationale for the choice of an efficient design and an appropriate likelihood method to estimate the risk associated with an inherited gene mutation.
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 | 0.147 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".