Markov Chain Monte Carlo Linkage Analysis: Effect of Bin Width on the Probability of Linkage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyzed part of the Genetic Analysis Workshop (GAW) 12 simulated data using Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) methods that are implemented in the computer program Loki. The MCMC method reports the "probability of linkage" (PL) across the chromosomal regions of interest. The point of maximum PL can then be taken as a "location estimate" for the location of the quantitative trait locus (QTL). However, Loki does not provide a formal statistical test of linkage. In this paper, we explore how the bin width used in the calculations affects the max PL and the location estimate. We analyzed age at onset (AO) and quantitative trait number 5, Q5, from 26 replicates of the general simulated data in one region where we knew a major gene, MG5, is located. For each trait, we found the max PL and the corresponding location estimate, using four different bin widths. We found that bin width, as expected, does affect the max PL and the location estimate, and we recommend that users of Loki explore how their results vary with different bin widths.
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 | 0.051 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".