MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008593490 · doi:10.1515/ijb-2019-0038

A Bayesian Framework for Robust Quantitative Trait Locus Mapping and Outlier Detection

2020· article· en· W3008593490 on OpenAlexaff
Crispin M. Mutshinda, Andrew J. Irwin, Mikko J. Sillanpää

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Biostatistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutlierBayesian probabilityLasso (programming language)Quantitative trait locusAnomaly detectionArtificial intelligencePrior probabilityPattern recognition (psychology)RegressionComputer scienceMean-shiftMathematicsStatisticsBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a Bayesian framework for simultaneous feature selection and outlier detection in sparse high-dimensional regression models, with a focus on quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping in experimental crosses. More specifically, we incorporate the robust mean shift outlier handling mechanism into the multiple QTL mapping regression model and apply LASSO regularization concurrently to the genetic effects and the mean-shift terms through the flexible extended Bayesian LASSO (EBL) prior structure, thereby combining QTL mapping and outlier detection into a single sparse model representation problem. The EBL priors on the mean-shift terms prevent outlying phenotypic values from distorting the genotype-phenotype association and allow their detection as cases with outstanding mean shift values following the LASSO shrinkage. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of our new methodology at mapping QTLs in the presence of outlying phenotypic values and simultaneously identifying the potential outliers, while maintaining a comparable performance to the standard EBL on outlier-free data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of BiostatisticsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207