MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777001983 · doi:10.1002/gepi.22107

Estimating and testing direct genetic effects in directed acyclic graphs using estimating equations

2017· article· en· W2777001983 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Konigorski, Yuan Wang, Candemır Çiğşar, Yildiz E. Yilmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Epidemiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and LabradorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of NewfoundlandNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHelmholtz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsDirected acyclic graphGeneralized estimating equationMathematicsStatisticsComputational biologyGeneticsBiologyEconometricsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic EpidemiologySame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207