MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115490334 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00011

Exploring the potential benefits of stratified false discovery rates for region-based testing of association with rare genetic variation

2014· article· en· W2115490334 on OpenAlexaff
Changjiang Xu, Antonio Ciampi, Celia M.T. Greenwood

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsLinkage disequilibriumMetric (unit)ExomeComputer scienceFalse discovery rateGenetic associationGenome-wide association studyAnnotationStatistical powerExome sequencingData miningComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsStatisticsMutationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When analyzing the data that arises from exome or whole-genome sequencing studies, window-based tests, (i.e., tests that jointly analyze all genetic data in a small genomic region), are very popular. However, power is known to be quite low for finding associations with phenotypes using these tests, and therefore a variety of analytic strategies may be employed to potentially improve power. Using sequencing data of all of chromosome 3 from an interim release of data on 2432 individuals from the UK10K project, we simulated phenotypes associated with rare genetic variation, and used the results to explore the window-based test power. We asked two specific questions: firstly, whether there could be substantial benefits associated with incorporating information from external annotation on the genetic variants, and secondly whether the false discovery rate (FDRs) would be a useful metric for assessing significance. Although, as expected, there are benefits to using additional information (such as annotation) when it is associated with causality, we confirmed the general pattern of low sensitivity and power for window-based tests. For our chosen example, even when power is high to detect some of the associations, many of the regions containing causal variants are not detectable, despite using lax significance thresholds and optimal analytic methods. Furthermore, our estimated FDR values tended to be much smaller than the true FDRs. Long-range correlations between variants-due to linkage disequilibrium-likely explain some of this bias. A more sophisticated approach to using the annotation information may improve power, however, many causal variants of realistic effect sizes may simply be undetectable, at least with this sample size. Perhaps annotation information could assist in distinguishing windows containing causal variants from windows that are merely correlated with causal variants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.583
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.583
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207