A Bayesian graphical model for genome-wide association studies (GWAS)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of GWAS data has long been restricted to simple models that cannot fully capture the genetic architecture of complex human diseases. As a shift from standard approaches, we propose here a general statistical framework for multi-SNP analysis of GWAS data based on a Bayesian graphical model. Our goal is to develop a general approach applicable to a wide range of genetic association problems, including GWAS and fine-mapping studies, and, more specifically, be able to: (1) Assess the joint effect of multiple SNPs that can be linked or unlinked and interact or not; (2) Explore the multi-SNP model space efficiently using the Mode Oriented Stochastic Search (MOSS) algorithm and determine the best models. We illustrate our new methodology with an application to the CGEM breast cancer GWAS data. Our algorithm selected several SNPs embedded in multi-locus models with high posterior probabilities. Most of the SNPs selected have a biological relevance. Interestingly, several of them have never been detected in standard single-SNP analyses. Finally, our approach has been implemented in the open source $R$ package genMOSS.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it