MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146901830 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxu026

Multiple comparison procedures for neuroimaging genomewide association studies

2014· article· en· W2146901830 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiostatistics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingUniversity of California, San DiegoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaAlzheimer's AssociationAmorfix Life SciencesF. Hoffmann-La RocheMedpaceAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationWellcome TrustSynarcBayer HealthCareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNeuroimagingImaging geneticsUnivariateFalse discovery rateComputer scienceAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMultiple comparisons problemDimensionality reductionGenome-wide association studyBrain sizeStatistical powerComputational biologyArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSingle-nucleotide polymorphismNeuroscienceMagnetic resonance imagingBiologyMultivariate statisticsMedicineStatisticsGeneticsGeneGenotypeMathematicsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research in neuroimaging has focused on assessing associations between genetic variants that are measured on a genomewide scale and brain imaging phenotypes. A large number of works in the area apply massively univariate analyses on a genomewide basis to find single nucleotide polymorphisms that influence brain structure. In this paper, we propose using various dimensionality reduction methods on both brain structural MRI scans and genomic data, motivated by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study. We also consider a new multiple testing adjustment method and compare it with two existing false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment methods. The simulation results suggest an increase in power for the proposed method. The real-data analysis suggests that the proposed procedure is able to find associations between genetic variants and brain volume differences that offer potentially new biological insights.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.299 · 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