When Is an Endophenotype Useful to Detect Association to a Disease? Exploring the Relationships between Disease Status, Endophenotype and Genetic Polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the conditions and analysis strategies required so that endophenotypes related to a disease help discover genetic variants involved in the disease. METHODS: The association with disease susceptibility variants is examined as a function of the relationships between disease status, endophenotype values and the genotype at another disease or endophenotype susceptibility locus assumed to be previously known, using approximate linear models of allele frequencies as a function of these variables and simulations in the context of family studies when the endophenotype is dichotomous. RESULTS: Under genetic mechanisms where the risk allele of the tested locus has an effect exclusively in subjects with the endophenotype, the risk allele frequency differences between affected and unaffected subjects are much greater in the subset of subjects with an endophenotype impairment than in those without such an impairment, and power gains are obtained when testing the association under a joint disease-endophenotype model, both with two-locus or single-locus tests. However, with moderate main effect on the risk of disease or endophenotype impairment, testing directly the association between risk allele and disease or endophenotype is more powerful than testing under a joint disease-endophenotype model. CONCLUSIONS: Joint modeling of disease and endophenotype should be used only in parallel with standard disease association testing.
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 | 0.034 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".