MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741277522 · doi:10.1177/1178631017721178

Multiple Testing in the Context of Gene Discovery in Sickle Cell Disease Using Genome-Wide Association Studies

2017· article· en· W2741277522 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin H.M. Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueGenomics Insights · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteWellcome Trust
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyGenetic associationContext (archaeology)Computational biologyDiseaseMultiple comparisons problemBiologyGeneticsMedicineGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of multiple testing, also termed multiplicity, is ubiquitous in studies where multiple hypotheses are tested simultaneously. Genome-wide association study (GWAS), a type of genetic association study that has gained popularity in the past decade, is most susceptible to the issue of multiple testing. Different methodologies have been employed to address the issue of multiple testing in GWAS. The purpose of the review is to examine the methodologies employed in dealing with multiple testing in the context of gene discovery using GWAS in sickle cell disease complications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomics InsightsSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207