Estimating and testing direct genetic effects in directed acyclic graphs using estimating equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In genetic association studies, it is important to distinguish direct and indirect genetic effects in order to build truly functional models. For this purpose, we consider a directed acyclic graph setting with genetic variants, primary and intermediate phenotypes, and confounding factors. In order to make valid statistical inference on direct genetic effects on the primary phenotype, it is necessary to consider all potential effects in the graph, and we propose to use the estimating equations method with robust Huber-White sandwich standard errors. We evaluate the proposed causal inference based on estimating equations (CIEE) method and compare it with traditional multiple regression methods, the structural equation modeling method, and sequential G-estimation methods through a simulation study for the analysis of (completely observed) quantitative traits and time-to-event traits subject to censoring as primary phenotypes. The results show that CIEE provides valid estimators and inference by successfully removing the effect of intermediate phenotypes from the primary phenotype and is robust against measured and unmeasured confounding of the indirect effect through observed factors. All other methods except the sequential G-estimation method for quantitative traits fail in some scenarios where their test statistics yield inflated type I errors. In the analysis of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 19 dataset, we estimate and test genetic effects on blood pressure accounting for intermediate gene expression phenotypes. The results show that CIEE can identify genetic variants that would be missed by traditional regression analyses. CIEE is computationally fast, widely applicable to different fields, and available as an R package.
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 | 0.024 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".