Population genetic simulation study of power in association testing across genetic architectures and study designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is well established that genetics can be a major contributor to population variation of complex traits, the relative contributions of rare and common variants to phenotypic variation remains a matter of considerable debate. Here, we simulate genetic and phenotypic data across different case/control panel sampling strategies, sequencing methods, and genetic architecture models based on evolutionary forces to determine the statistical performance of rare variant association tests (RVATs) widely in use. We find that the highest statistical power of RVATs is achieved by sampling case/control individuals from the extremes of an underlying quantitative trait distribution. We also demonstrate that the use of genotyping arrays, in conjunction with imputation from a whole-genome sequenced (WGS) reference panel, recovers the vast majority (90%) of the power that could be achieved by sequencing the case/control panel using current tools. Finally, we show that for dichotomous traits, the statistical performance of RVATs decreases as rare variants become more important in the trait architecture. Our results extend previous work to show that RVATs are insufficiently powered to make generalizable conclusions about the role of rare variants in dichotomous complex traits.
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 | 0.066 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".