Leveraging Hardy–Weinberg disequilibrium for association testing in case-control studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a case-control association study, deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) or Hardy-Weinberg dis-equilibrium (HWD) in the control group is usually considered as evidence for potential genotyping error, and the corresponding SNP is then removed from the study. On the other hand, assuming HWE holds in the study population, a truly associated SNP is expected to be out of HWE in the case group. Efforts have been made in combining association tests with tests of HWE in the cases to increase the power of detecting disease susceptibility loci (Song and Elston (2006), Wang and Shete (2010)). However, these existing methods are ad-hoc and sensitive to model assumptions. Utilizing the recent robust allele-based (RA) regression model for conducting allelic association tests (Zhang and Sun (2020)), here we propose a joint RA test that naturally integrates association evidence from the traditional association test and a test that evaluates the difference in HWD between the case and control groups. The proposed test is robust to genotyping error, as well as to potential HWD in the population attributed to factors that are unrelated to phenotype-genotype association. We provide the asymptotic distribution of the proposed test statistic so that it is easy to implement, and we demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the test through extensive simulation studies and an application.
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 | 0.105 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".