Association analysis using next-generation sequence data from publicly available control groups: the robust variance score statistic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Sufficiently powered case-control studies with next-generation sequence (NGS) data remain prohibitively expensive for many investigators. If feasible, a more efficient strategy would be to include publicly available sequenced controls. However, these studies can be confounded by differences in sequencing platform; alignment, single nucleotide polymorphism and variant calling algorithms; read depth; and selection thresholds. Assuming one can match cases and controls on the basis of ethnicity and other potential confounding factors, and one has access to the aligned reads in both groups, we investigate the effect of systematic differences in read depth and selection threshold when comparing allele frequencies between cases and controls. We propose a novel likelihood-based method, the robust variance score (RVS), that substitutes genotype calls by their expected values given observed sequence data. RESULTS: We show theoretically that the RVS eliminates read depth bias in the estimation of minor allele frequency. We also demonstrate that, using simulated and real NGS data, the RVS method controls Type I error and has comparable power to the 'gold standard' analysis with the true underlying genotypes for both common and rare variants. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: An RVS R script and instructions can be found at strug.research.sickkids.ca, and at https://github.com/strug-lab/RVS. CONTACT: lisa.strug@utoronto.ca SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".