Retrospective versus prospective score tests for genetic association with case‐control data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the seminal work of Prentice and Pyke, the prospective logistic likelihood has become the standard method of analysis for retrospectively collected case-control data, in particular for testing the association between a single genetic marker and a disease outcome in genetic case-control studies. In the study of multiple genetic markers with relatively small effects, especially those with rare variants, various aggregated approaches based on the same prospective likelihood have been developed to integrate subtle association evidence among all the markers considered. Many of the commonly used tests are derived from the prospective likelihood under a common-random-effect assumption, which assumes a common random effect for all subjects. We develop the locally most powerful aggregation test based on the retrospective likelihood under an independent-random-effect assumption, which allows the genetic effect to vary among subjects. In contrast to the fact that disease prevalence information cannot be used to improve efficiency for the estimation of odds ratio parameters in logistic regression models, we show that it can be utilized to enhance the testing power in genetic association studies. Extensive simulations demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method over the existing ones. A real genome-wide association study is analyzed for illustration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".