MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103163125 · doi:10.1002/gepi.21908

Powerful Set‐Based Gene‐Environment Interaction Testing Framework for Complex Diseases

2015· article· en· W2103163125 on OpenAlex
Shuo Jiao, Ulrike Peters, Sonja I. Berndt, Stéphane Bezieau, Hermann Brenner, Peter T. Campbell, Andrew T. Chan, Jenny Chang‐Claude, Mathieu Lemire, Polly A. Newcomb, John D. Potter, Martha L. Slattery, Michael O. Woods, Li Hsu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Epidemiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthBroad Institute
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceIdentification (biology)Test setIndependence (probability theory)Variance (accounting)Data miningAggregate (composite)Computational biologyMachine learningBiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identification of gene-environment interaction (G × E) is important in understanding the etiology of complex diseases. Based on our previously developed Set Based gene EnviRonment InterAction test (SBERIA), in this paper we propose a powerful framework for enhanced set-based G × E testing (eSBERIA). The major challenge of signal aggregation within a set is how to tell signals from noise. eSBERIA tackles this challenge by adaptively aggregating the interaction signals within a set weighted by the strength of the marginal and correlation screening signals. eSBERIA then combines the screening-informed aggregate test with a variance component test to account for the residual signals. Additionally, we develop a case-only extension for eSBERIA (coSBERIA) and an existing set-based method, which boosts the power not only by exploiting the G-E independence assumption but also by avoiding the need to specify main effects for a large number of variants in the set. Through extensive simulation, we show that coSBERIA and eSBERIA are considerably more powerful than existing methods within the case-only and the case-control method categories across a wide range of scenarios. We conduct a genome-wide G × E search by applying our methods to Illumina HumanExome Beadchip data of 10,446 colorectal cancer cases and 10,191 controls and identify two novel interactions between nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and MINK1 and PTCHD3.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it