Were genome‐wide linkage studies a waste of time? Exploiting candidate regions within genome‐wide association studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A central issue in genome-wide association (GWA) studies is assessing statistical significance while adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing. An equally important question is the statistical efficiency of the GWA design as compared to the traditional sequential approach in which genome-wide linkage analysis is followed by region-wise association mapping. Nevertheless, GWA is becoming more popular due in part to cost efficiency: commercially available 1M chips are nearly as inexpensive as a custom-designed 10 K chip. It is becoming apparent, however, that most of the on-going GWA studies with 2,000-5,000 samples are in fact underpowered. As a means to improve power, we emphasize the importance of utilizing prior information such as results of previous linkage studies via a stratified false discovery rate (FDR) control. The essence of the stratified FDR control is to prioritize the genome and maintain power to interrogate candidate regions within the GWA study. These candidate regions can be defined as, but are by no means limited to, linkage-peak regions. Furthermore, we theoretically unify the stratified FDR approach and the weighted P-value method, and we show that stratified FDR can be formulated as a robust version of weighted FDR. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of the methods in two GWA datasets: Type 2 diabetes (FUSION) and an on-going study of long-term diabetic complications (DCCT/EDIC). The methods are implemented as a user-friendly software package, SFDR. The same stratification framework can be readily applied to other type of studies, for example, using GWA results to improve the power of sequencing data analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it