Multiple linear combination (MLC) regression tests for common variants adapted to linkage disequilibrium structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By jointly analyzing multiple variants within a gene, instead of one at a time, gene-based multiple regression can improve power, robustness, and interpretation in genetic association analysis. We investigate multiple linear combination (MLC) test statistics for analysis of common variants under realistic trait models with linkage disequilibrium (LD) based on HapMap Asian haplotypes. MLC is a directional test that exploits LD structure in a gene to construct clusters of closely correlated variants recoded such that the majority of pairwise correlations are positive. It combines variant effects within the same cluster linearly, and aggregates cluster-specific effects in a quadratic sum of squares and cross-products, producing a test statistic with reduced degrees of freedom (df) equal to the number of clusters. By simulation studies of 1000 genes from across the genome, we demonstrate that MLC is a well-powered and robust choice among existing methods across a broad range of gene structures. Compared to minimum P-value, variance-component, and principal-component methods, the mean power of MLC is never much lower than that of other methods, and can be higher, particularly with multiple causal variants. Moreover, the variation in gene-specific MLC test size and power across 1000 genes is less than that of other methods, suggesting it is a complementary approach for discovery in genome-wide analysis. The cluster construction of the MLC test statistics helps reveal within-gene LD structure, allowing interpretation of clustered variants as haplotypic effects, while multiple regression helps to distinguish direct and indirect associations.
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 | 0.028 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".