Independent test assessment using the extreme value distribution theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new generation of whole genome sequencing platforms offers great possibilities and challenges for dissecting the genetic basis of complex traits. With a very high number of sequence variants, a naïve multiple hypothesis threshold correction hinders the identification of reliable associations by the overreduction of statistical power. In this report, we examine 2 alternative approaches to improve the statistical power of a whole genome association study to detect reliable genetic associations. The approaches were tested using the Genetic Analysis Workshop 19 (GAW19) whole genome sequencing data. The first tested method estimates the real number of effective independent tests actually being performed in whole genome association project by the use of an extreme value distribution and a set of phenotype simulations. Given the familiar nature of the GAW19 data and the finite number of pedigree founders in the sample, the number of correlations between genotypes is greater than in a set of unrelated samples. Using our procedure, we estimate that the effective number represents only 15 % of the total number of independent tests performed. However, even using this corrected significance threshold, no genome-wide significant association could be detected for systolic and diastolic blood pressure traits. The second approach implements a biological relevance-driven hypothesis tested by exploiting prior computational predictions on the effect of nonsynonymous genetic variants detected in a whole genome sequencing association study. This guided testing approach was able to identify 2 promising single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 1 for each trait, targeting biologically relevant genes that could help shed light on the genesis of the human hypertension. The first gene, PFH14 , associated with systolic blood pressure, interacts directly with genes involved in calcium-channel formation and the second gene, MAP4 , encodes a microtubule-associated protein and had already been detected by previous genome-wide association study experiments conducted in an Asian population. Our results highlight the necessity of the development of alternative approached to improve the efficiency on the detection of reasonable candidate associations in whole genome sequencing studies.
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 | 0.139 | 0.374 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".