Combining Case-Control and Case-Trio Data From the Same Population in Genetic Association Analyses: Overview of Approaches and Illustration With a Candidate Gene Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In genetic association studies, investigators compare allele or genotype frequencies in unrelated case and control subjects or examine preferential allele transmissions from parents to affected offspring. In many genetic case-control studies, the collection of DNA material extends to relatives such as parents of cases. Thus, case-control and case-parent trio association analyses are possible. Whereas the goal of collecting genetic information from family members in a study initially designed as a case-control study is to enrich the genetic analysis, increase power, or address concern about population structure bias, methods of combining genetic data from unrelated case and control subjects with genetic trio data from the same study population are not well known. A number of hybrid approaches have been developed that utilize such data together. In this paper, the authors describe key features of genetic case-control and case-parent trio studies and review commonly used methods of genetic analysis for case-parent trio designs. In addition, they provide a pragmatic review of statistical methods and available software for existing hybrid approaches that combine various components of case-control and genetic trio data. The application of all methods is illustrated using a candidate gene study of childhood leukemia that included case-control subjects and their parents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".