Powerful Set‐Based Gene‐Environment Interaction Testing Framework for Complex Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".