Prioritizing Rare Variants with Conditional Likelihood Ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prioritizing individual rare variants within associated genes or regions often consists of an ad hoc combination of statistical and biological considerations. From the statistical perspective, rare variants are often ranked using Fisher's exact p values, which can lead to different rankings of the same set of variants depending on whether 1- or 2-sided p values are used. RESULTS: We propose a likelihood ratio-based measure, maxLRc, for the statistical component of ranking rare variants under a case-control study design that avoids the hypothesis-testing paradigm. We prove analytically that the maxLRc is always well-defined, even when the data has zero cell counts in the 2×2 disease-variant table. Via simulation, we show that the maxLRc outperforms Fisher's exact p values in most practical scenarios considered. Using next-generation sequence data from 27 rolandic epilepsy cases and 200 controls in a region previously shown to be linked to and associated with rolandic epilepsy, we demonstrate that rankings assigned by the maxLRc and exact p values can differ substantially. CONCLUSION: The maxLRc provides reliable statistical prioritization of rare variants using only the observed data, avoiding the need to specify parameters associated with hypothesis testing that can result in ranking discrepancies across p value procedures; and it is applicable to common variant prioritization.
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 | 0.041 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".