A simple nonparametric multipoint procedure to test for linkage through mothers or fathers as well as imprinting effects in the presence of linkage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple multipoint procedure to test for parent-of-origin effects in samples of affected siblings is discussed. The procedure consists of artificially changing all full sibs to half-sibs, with distinct mothers or fathers depending on the parental origin to be evaluated, then analyzing these families with commonly used statistics and software. The procedure leads to tests for linkage through mothers or fathers and also leads to a test for imprinting effects in the presence of linkage. Moreover, simulations illustrate that in regions unlinked to susceptibility genes this multipoint procedure does not have an inflated type I error if a sex-averaged genetic map is used, even when large differences exist between male-specific and female-specific maps. In regions linked with susceptibility genes, the test of imprinting is biased under the null hypothesis if differences exist between sex-specific maps, irrespective of the map used in the analysis. The procedure is applied to the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism dataset from the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14. Results indicate that brothers categorized as affected according to the DMS-III-R and Feighner classification show evidence of linkage through fathers to the 6q25 region (p = 0.00038) as well as modest evidence of imprinting (p = 0.018). This region harbors OPRM1, a candidate gene for substance dependence.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".