Causal Genetic Inference Using Haplotypes as Instrumental Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In genomic studies with both genotypes and gene or protein expression profile available, causal effects of gene or protein on clinical outcomes can be inferred through using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IVs). The goal of introducing IV is to remove the effects of unobserved factors that may confound the relationship between the biomarkers and the outcome. A valid inference under the IV framework requires pairwise associations and pathway exclusivity. Among these assumptions, the IV expression association needs to be strong for the casual effect estimates to be unbiased. However, a small number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) often provide limited explanation of the variability in the gene or protein expression and can only serve as weak IVs. In this study, we propose to replace SNPs with haplotypes as IVs to increase the variant-expression association and thus improve the casual effect inference of the expression. In the classical two-stage procedure, we developed a haplotype regression model combined with a model selection procedure to identify optimal instruments. The performance of the new method was evaluated through simulations and compared with the IV approaches using observed multiple SNPs. Our results showed the gain of power to detect a causal effect of gene or protein on the outcome using haplotypes compared with using only observed SNPs, under either complete or missing genotype scenarios. We applied our proposed method to a study of the effect of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) protein expression on the 90-day survival following sepsis and found that overly expressed IL-1β is likely to increase mortality.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".