A flexible copula‐based approach for the analysis of secondary phenotypes in ascertained samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collected for a genome-wide association study of a primary phenotype are often used for additional genome-wide association analyses of secondary phenotypes. However, when the primary and secondary traits are dependent, naïve analyses of secondary phenotypes may induce spurious associations in non-randomly ascertained samples. Previously, retrospective likelihood-based methods have been proposed to correct for sampling biases arising in secondary trait association analyses. However, most methods have been introduced to handle studies featuring a case-control design based on a binary primary phenotype. As such, these methods are not directly applicable to more complicated study designs such as multiple-trait studies, where the sampling mechanism also depends on the secondary phenotype, or extreme-trait studies, where individuals with extreme primary phenotype values are selected. To accommodate these more complicated sampling mechanisms, only a few prospective likelihood approaches have been proposed. These approaches assume a normal distribution for the secondary phenotype (or the latent secondary phenotype) and a bivariate normal distribution for the primary-secondary phenotype dependence. In this paper, we propose a unified copula-based approach to appropriately detect genetic variant/secondary phenotype association in the presence of selected samples. Primary phenotype is either binary or continuous and the secondary phenotype is continuous although not necessary normal. We use both prospective and retrospective likelihoods to account for the sampling mechanism and use a copula model to allow for potentially different dependence structures between the primary and secondary phenotypes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through simulation studies and by analyzing data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children cohort.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".