Strategies for Pathway Analysis Using GWAS and WGS Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-allele study designs, commonly used in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) as well as the more recently developed whole genome sequencing (WGS) studies, are a standard approach for investigating the relationship of common variation within the human genome to a given phenotype of interest. However, single-allele association results published for many GWAS studies represent only the tip of the iceberg for the information that can be extracted from these datasets. The primary analysis strategy for GWAS entails association analysis in which only the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with the strongest p-values are declared statistically significant due to issues arising from multiple testing and type I errors. Factors such as locus heterogeneity, epistasis, and multiple genes conferring small effects contribute to the complexity of the genetic models underlying phenotype expression. Thus, many biologically meaningful associations having lower effect sizes at individual genes are overlooked, making it difficult to separate true associations from a sea of false-positive associations. Organizing these individual SNPs into biologically meaningful groups to look at the overall effects of minor perturbations to genes and pathways is desirable. This pathway-based approach provides researchers with insight into the functional foundations of the phenotype being studied and allows testing of various genetic scenarios. © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".