Shared genomic segment analysis with equivalence testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important aspect of disease gene mapping is replication, that is, a putative finding in one group of individuals is confirmed in another set of individuals. As it can happen by chance that individuals share an estimated disease position, we developed a statistical approach to determine the p-value for multiple individuals or families to share a possibly small number of candidate susceptibility variants. Here, we focus on candidate variants for dominant traits that have been obtained by our previously developed heterozygosity analysis, and we are testing the sharing of candidate variants obtained for different individuals. Our approach allows for multiple pathogenic variants in a gene to contribute to disease, and for estimated disease variant positions to be imprecise. Statistically, the method developed here falls into the category of equivalence testing, where the classical null and alternative hypotheses of homogeneity and heterogeneity are reversed. The null hypothesis situation is created by permuting genomic locations of variants for one individual after another. We applied our methodology to the ALSPAC data set of 1,927 whole-genome sequenced individuals, where some individuals carry a pathogenic variant for the BRCA1 gene, but no two individuals carry the same variant. Our shared genomic segment analysis found significant evidence for BRCA1 pathogenic variants within ±5 kb of a given DNA variant.
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 | 0.037 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".