A telescope GWAS analysis strategy, based on SNPs-genes-pathways ensamble and on multivariate algorithms, to characterize late onset Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revealed a plethora of putative susceptibility genes for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the sole exception of APOE gene unequivocally validated in independent study. Considering that the etiology of complex diseases like AD could depend on functional multiple genes interaction network, here we proposed an alternative GWAS analysis strategy based on (i) multivariate methods and on a (ii) telescope approach, in order to guarantee the identification of correlated variables, and reveal their connections at three biological connected levels. Specifically as multivariate methods, we employed two machine learning algorithms and a genetic association test and we considered SNPs, Genes and Pathways features in the analysis of two public GWAS dataset (ADNI-1 and ADNI-2). For each dataset and for each feature we addressed two binary classifications tasks: cases vs. controls and the low vs. high risk of developing AD considering the allelic status of APOEe4. This complex strategy allowed the identification of SNPs, genes and pathways lists statistically robust and meaningful from the biological viewpoint. Among the results, we confirm the involvement of TOMM40 gene in AD and we propose GRM7 as a novel gene significantly associated with AD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".