MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136428841 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-8-s1-s72

Bivariate genetic association analysis of systolic and diastolic blood pressure by copula models

2014· article· en· W2136428841 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Konigorski, Yildiz E. Yilmaz, Shelley B. Bull

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMemorial University of NewfoundlandMount Sinai HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMitacsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthTexas Biomedical Research Institute
KeywordsBivariate analysisCopula (linguistics)UnivariateBlood pressureInferenceGenetic associationCorrelationMedicinePedigree chartInternal medicineGenome-wide association studyTail dependenceRegressionGenetic modelMultivariate statisticsCardiologyStatisticsEconometricsGeneGeneticsBiologyMathematicsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismComputer scienceGenotypeArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conduct genetic association analysis in the subset of unrelated individuals from the San Antonio Family Studies pedigrees, applying a two-stage approach to take account of the dependence between systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP). In the first stage, we adjust blood pressure for the effects of age, sex, smoking, and use of antihypertensive medication based on a novel modification of censored regression. In the second stage, we model the bivariate distribution of the adjusted SBP and DBP phenotypes by a copula function with interpretable SBP-DBP correlation parameters. This allows us to identify genetic variants associated with each of the adjusted blood pressures, as well as variants that explain the association between the two phenotypes. Within this framework, we define a pleiotropic variant as one that reduces the SBP-DBP correlation. Our results for whole genome sequence variants in the gene ULK4 on chromosome 3 suggest that inference obtained from a copula model can be more informative than findings from the SBP-specific and DBP-specific univariate models alone.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207