Genetic association analysis with pedigrees: Direct inference using the composite likelihood ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The likelihood function represents statistical evidence given data and a model. The evidential paradigm (EP), an alternative to Bayesian and Frequentist paradigms, provides considerable theory demonstrating evidence strength for different parameter values via the ratio of likelihoods at different parameter values; thus, enabling inference directly from the likelihood function. The likelihood function, however, can be difficult to compute; for example, in genetic association studies with a binary outcome in large pedigrees. Composite likelihood (CL) is an alternative when the real likelihood is intractable. We show CLs have the two large sample properties of the EP for reliable evidence interpretation: (1) CL supports the true value over a false value by an arbitrarily large factor; and (2) the probability of favouring a false value over the true value is small and bounded. Using simulation, and in a genetic association analysis of reading disability (RD) in large rolandic epilepsy pedigrees, we show that the CL approach yields valid statistical inference and identifies RD associated variants. When compared to analyses using generalized estimating equations, results show a similar prioritization of SNPs, although the CL approach provides additional complementary information, and more intuitive solutions to the multiple hypothesis testing problem.
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 | 0.023 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".