An information-gain approach to detecting three-way epistatic interactions in genetic association studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epistasis has been historically used to describe the phenomenon that the effect of a given gene on a phenotype can be dependent on one or more other genes, and is an essential element for understanding the association between genetic and phenotypic variations. Quantifying epistasis of orders higher than two is very challenging due to both the computational complexity of enumerating all possible combinations in genome-wide data and the lack of efficient and effective methodologies. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we propose a fast, non-parametric, and model-free measure for three-way epistasis. METHODS: Such a measure is based on information gain, and is able to separate all lower order effects from pure three-way epistasis. RESULTS: Our method was verified on synthetic data and applied to real data from a candidate-gene study of tuberculosis in a West African population. In the tuberculosis data, we found a statistically significant pure three-way epistatic interaction effect that was stronger than any lower-order associations. CONCLUSION: Our study provides a methodological basis for detecting and characterizing high-order gene-gene interactions in genetic association studies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".