Likelihood Ratio Test for Detecting Gene (G)-Environment (E) Interactions Under an Additive Risk Model Exploiting G-E Independence for Case-Control Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a long-standing controversy in epidemiology with regard to an appropriate risk scale for testing interactions between genes (G) and environmental exposure (E ). Although interaction tests based on the logistic model-which approximates the multiplicative risk for rare diseases-have been more widely applied because of its convenience in statistical modeling, interactions under additive risk models have been regarded as closer to true biologic interactions and more useful in intervention-related decision-making processes in public health. It has been well known that exploiting a natural assumption of G-E independence for the underlying population can dramatically increase statistical power for detecting multiplicative interactions in case-control studies. However, the implication of the independence assumption for tests for additive interaction has not been previously investigated. In this article, the authors develop a likelihood ratio test for detecting additive interactions for case-control studies that incorporates the G-E independence assumption. Numerical investigation of power suggests that incorporation of the independence assumption can enhance the efficiency of the test for additive interaction by 2- to 2.5-fold. The authors illustrate their method by applying it to data from a bladder cancer study.
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 | 0.068 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".