Copy-number variation in control population cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copy-number variation (CNV) is the most prevalent type of structural variation in the human genome, and contributes significantly to genetic heterogeneity. It has already been recognized that some CNVs can contribute to human phenotype, including rare genomic disorders and Mendelian diseases. Other CNVs are now amenable to genome-wide association studies so that their influence on human phenotypic diversity and disease susceptibility may soon be more readily determined. Population studies and reference databases for control and disease-associated samples are required to provide an information resource about CNV frequencies and their relative contribution to phenotypic outcomes. The relatively high cost of screening individual samples has tended to limit the number of controls assayed, and use of the data has often been hampered by the variety of technology platforms and analysis techniques. As a result, there is still a paucity of data on population frequency and distribution of CNVs, particularly for those that are rare. Here, we provide an example of how to discover new CNVs from existing genotype data from large-scale genetic epidemiological studies. We also discuss the need to expand surveys of CNV in different population-based cohorts and to apply the information to studies of human variation and disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".