SimPEL: Simulation‐based power estimation for sequencing studies of low‐prevalence conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power estimations are important for optimizing genotype-phenotype association study designs. However, existing frameworks are designed for common disorders, and thus ill-suited for the inherent challenges of studies for low-prevalence conditions such as rare diseases and infrequent adverse drug reactions. These challenges include small sample sizes and the need to leverage genetic annotation resources in association analyses for the purpose of ranking potential causal genes. We present SimPEL, a simulation-based program providing power estimations for the design of low-prevalence condition studies. SimPEL integrates the usage of gene annotation resources for association analyses. Customizable parameters, including the penetrance of the putative causal allele and the employed pathogenic scoring system, allow SimPEL to realistically model a large range of study designs. To demonstrate the effects of various parameters on power, we estimated the power of several simulated designs using SimPEL and captured power trends in agreement with observations from current literature on low-frequency condition studies. SimPEL, as a tool, provides researchers studying low-frequency conditions with an intuitive and highly flexible avenue for statistical power estimation. The platform-independent "batteries included" executable and default input files are available at https://github.com/precisionomics/SimPEL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".