Statistical methods with exhaustive search in the identification of gene–gene interactions for colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though additive forms of heritability are primarily studied in genetics, nonlinear, non-additive gene-gene interactions, that is, epistasis, could explain a portion of the missing heritability in complex human diseases including cancer. In recent years, powerful computational methods have been introduced to understand multivariable genetic factors of these complex human diseases in extremely high-dimensional genome-wide data. In this study, we investigated the performance of three powerful methods, BOolean Operation-based Screening and Testing (BOOST), FastEpistasis, and Tree-based Epistasis Association Mapping (TEAM) to identify interacting genetic risk factors of colorectal cancer (CRC) for genome-wide association studies (GWAS). After quality-control based data preprocessing, we applied these three algorithms to a CRC GWAS data set, and selected the top-ranked 100 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) pairs identified by each method (251 SNPs in total), among which 74 pairs were common between FastEpistasis and BOOST. The identified SNPs by BOOST, FastEpistasis, and TEAM mapped to 58, 57, and 62 genes, respectively. Some genes highlighted by our study, including MACF1, USP49, SMAD2, SMAD3, TGFBR1, and RHOA, have been detected in previous CRC-related research. We also identified some new genes with potential biological relevance to CRC such as CCDC32. Furthermore, we constructed the network of these top SNP pairs for three methods, and the patterns identified in the networks show that some SNPs including rs2412531, rs349699, and rs17142011 play a crucial role in the classification of disease status in our study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".