Using a higher criticism statistic to detect modest effects in a genome-wide study of rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In high-dimensional studies such as genome-wide association studies, the correction for multiple testing in order to control total type I error results in decreased power to detect modest effects. We present a new analytical approach based on the higher criticism statistic that allows identification of the presence of modest effects. We apply our method to the genome-wide study of rheumatoid arthritis provided in the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16 Problem 1 data set. There is evidence for unknown bias in this study that could be explained by the presence of undetected modest effects. We compared the asymptotic and empirical thresholds for the higher criticism statistic. Using the asymptotic threshold we detected the presence of modest effects genome-wide. We also detected modest effects using 90th percentile of the empirical null distribution as a threshold; however, there is no such evidence when the 95th and 99th percentiles were used. While the higher criticism method suggests that there is some evidence for modest effects, interpreting individual single-nucleotide polymorphisms with significant higher criticism statistics is of undermined value. The goal of higher criticism is to alert the researcher that genetic effects remain to be discovered and to promote the use of more targeted and powerful studies to detect the remaining effects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".