Using Gene Genealogies to Localize Rare Variants Associated with Complex Traits in Diploid Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many methods can detect trait association with causal variants in candidate genomic regions; however, a comparison of their ability to localize causal variants is lacking. We extend a previous study of the detection abilities of these methods to a comparison of their localization abilities. METHODS: Through coalescent simulation, we compare several popular association methods. Cases and controls are sampled from a diploid population to mimic human studies. As benchmarks for comparison, we include two methods that cluster phenotypes on the true genealogical trees: a naive Mantel test considered previously in haploid populations and an extension that takes into account whether case haplotypes carry a causal variant. We first work through a simulated dataset to illustrate the methods. We then perform a simulation study to score the localization and detection properties. RESULTS: In our simulations, the association signal was localized least precisely by the naive Mantel test and most precisely by its extension. Most other approaches had intermediate performance similar to the single-variant Fisher exact test. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm earlier findings in haploid populations about potential gains in performance from genealogy-based approaches. They also highlight differences between haploid and diploid populations when localizing and detecting causal variants.
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 | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".