When Is an Endophenotype Useful to Detect Association to a Disease? Exploring the Relationships between Disease Status, Endophenotype and Genetic Polymorphisms
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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