MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142584451 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-1-s1-s142

The multiplicity problem in linkage analysis of gene expression data – the power of differentiating cis- and trans-acting regulators

2007· article· en· W2142584451 on OpenAlexafffund
Baisong Huang, Jagadish Rangrej, Andrew D. Paterson, Lei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenOntario GenomicsOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsFalse discovery rateComputational biologyLinkage (software)GeneMultiplicity (mathematics)GenomeMultiple comparisons problemGenetic linkageData miningGeneticsMedicineBioinformaticsComputer scienceBiologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this report, we focused on the multiplicity issue in Problem 1 of Genetic Analysis Workshop 15. We investigated and compared the performance of the stratified false-discovery rate control method with the traditional aggregated approach, in an application to genome-wide linkage analyses of single-nucleotide polymorphism-to-gene expression data. We showed the importance of utilizing the available map information and demonstrated the power gained by conducting false-discovery rate control separately for cis and trans regulators under three different frameworks: fixed rejection region, fixed false-discovery rate, and fixed number of rejections.

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)0.179
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.484
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1790.484
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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