On the validity of within-nuclear-family genetic association analysis in samples of extended families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Splitting extended families into their component nuclear families to apply a genetic association method designed for nuclear families is a widespread practice in familial genetic studies. Dependence among genotypes and phenotypes of nuclear families from the same extended family arises because of genetic linkage of the tested marker with a risk variant or because of familial specificity of genetic effects due to gene-environment interaction. This raises concerns about the validity of inference conducted under the assumption of independence of the nuclear families. We indeed prove theoretically that, in a conditional logistic regression analysis applicable to disease cases and their genotyped parents, the naive model-based estimator of the variance of the coefficient estimates underestimates the true variance. However, simulations with realistic effect sizes of risk variants and variation of this effect from family to family reveal that the underestimation is negligible. The simulations also show the greater efficiency of the model-based variance estimator compared to a robust empirical estimator. Our recommendation is therefore, to use the model-based estimator of variance for inference on effects of genetic variants.
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 | 0.289 | 0.620 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".