MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132924909 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-8-s1-s97

Entropy-based method for assessing the influence of genetic markers and covariates on hypertension: application to Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 data

2014· article· en· W2132924909 on OpenAlexafffund
Jun Liu, Joseph Beyene

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMcMaster UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthTexas Biomedical Research Institute
KeywordsCovariateSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenetic associationMedicineEntropy (arrow of time)Outcome (game theory)Consistency (knowledge bases)BioinformaticsGeneticsStatisticsComputational biologyComputer scienceGenotypeBiologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many complex diseases are related to genetics, and it is of great interest to evaluate the association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and disease outcome. The association of genetics with outcome can be modified by covariates such as age, sex, smoking status, and membership to the same pedigree. In this paper, we propose a block entropy method to separate two classes of SNPs, for which the association with hypertension is either sensitive or insensitive to the covariates. We also propose a consistency entropy method to further reduce the number of SNPs that might be associated with the outcome. Based on the data provided by the organizers of Genetic Analysis Workshop 18, we calculated the block entropies for six different blocking strategies. Using block entropy and consistency entropy, we identified 230 SNPs on chromosome 9 that are most likely to be associated with the outcome and whose associations with hypertension are sensitive to the covariates.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207