The potential costs of accounting for genotypic errors in molecular parentage analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genotypic errors, whether due to mutation or laboratory error, can cause the genotypes of parents and their offspring to appear inconsistent with Mendelian inheritance. As a result, molecular parentage analyses are expected to benefit when allowances are made for the presence of genotypic errors. However, a cost of allowing for genotypic errors might also be expected under some analytical conditions, primarily because parentage analyses that assume nonzero genotypic error rates can neither assign nor exclude parentage with certainty. The goal of this work was therefore to determine whether or not such costs might be important under conditions relevant to parentage analyses, particularly in natural populations. Simulation results indicate that the costs may often outweigh the benefits of accounting for nonzero error rates, except in situations where data are available for many marker loci. Consequently, the most powerful approach to handling genotypic errors in parentage analyses might be to apply likelihood equations with error rates set to values substantially lower than the rates at which genotypic errors occur. When applying molecular parentage analyses to natural populations, we advocate an increased consideration of optimal strategies for handling genotypic errors. Currently available software packages contain procedures that can be used for this purpose.
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 | 0.054 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".