Using evidence for population stratification bias in combined individual‐ and family‐level genetic association analyses of quantitative traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic association studies are generally performed either by examining differences in the genotype distribution between individuals or by testing for preferential allele transmission within families. In the absence of population stratification bias (PSB), integrated analyses of individual and family data can increase power to identify susceptibility loci [Abecasis et al., 2000. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66:279-292; Chen and Lin, 2008. Genet. Epidemiol. 32:520-527; Epstein et al., 2005. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:592-608]. In existing methods, the presence of PSB is initially assessed by comparing results from between-individual and within-family analyses, and then combined analyses are performed only if no significant PSB is detected. However, this strategy requires specification of an arbitrary testing level alpha(PSB), typically 5%, to declare PSB significance. As a novel alternative, we propose to directly use the PSB evidence in weights that combine results from between-individual and within-family analyses. The weighted approach generalizes previous methods by using a continuous weighting function that depends only on the observed P-value instead of a binary weight that depends on alpha(PSB). Using simulations, we demonstrate that for quantitative trait analysis, the weighted approach provides a good compromise between type I error control and power to detect association in studies with few genotyped markers and limited information regarding population structure.
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 | 0.102 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".