Modeling Complex Disease with Demographic and Environmental Covariates and a Candidate Gene Marker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We randomly chose replicates 28 and 29 of the simulated data sets of Genetic Analysis Workshop 12 to model the dependence of affection status on covariates, quantitative traits, and genes using all living pedigree members. First we explored the relationship of affection status to demographic and environmental factors using logistic regression and the Cox proportional hazards models. In the second stage of our analyses the generalized transmission disequilibrium test (GTDT) was applied to nuclear families with at least two affected siblings to select single markers and high-risk alleles, which were tested in the population association analyses including all pedigree members. Multiple logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the joint contributions of genetic and nongenetic factors and a block-recursive modeling approach was adopted to study inherent hierarchical dependence structure in the data. We found that allele 2 on marker 35 of chromosome 6 is associated with higher risk compared with the other 3 alleles of this marker. In addition to this significant genetic effect, age at exam and four of the five quantitative traits (QT1, QT2, QT4, and QT5) had a significant association with the disease. Our results were obtained without knowledge of the true disease generating models.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".