Multipoint lods provide reliable linkage evidence despite unknown limiting distribution: type I error probabilities decrease with sample size for multipoint lods and mods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the behavior of type I error rates in model-based multipoint (MP) linkage analysis, as a function of sample size (N). We consider both MP lods (i.e., MP linkage analysis that uses the correct genetic model) and MP mods (maximizing MP lods over 18 dominant and recessive models). Following Xing and Elston (2006 Genet. Epidemiol, 30: 447-458), we first consider MP linkage analysis limited to a single position; then we enlarge the scope and maximize the lods and mods over a span of positions. In all situations we examined, type I error rates decrease with increasing sample size, apparently approaching zero. We show: (a) For MP lods analyzed only at a single position, well-known statistical theory predicts that type I error rates approach zero. (b) For MP lods and mods maximized over position, this result has a different explanation, related to the fact that one maximizes the scores over only a finite portion of the parameter range. The implications of these findings may be far-reaching: Although it is widely accepted that fixed nominal critical values for MP lods and mods are not known, this study shows that whatever the nominal error rates are, the actual error rates appear to decrease with increasing sample size. Moreover, the actual (observed) type I error rate may be quite small for any given study. We conclude that MP lod and mod scores provide reliable linkage evidence for complex diseases, despite the unknown limiting distributions of these MP scores.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it