Decoding ‘Unnecessary Complexity’: A Law of Complexity and a Concept of Hidden Variation Behind “Missing Heritability” in Precision Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The high hopes for the Human Genome Project and personalized medicine were not met because the relationship between genotypes and phenotypes turned out to be more complex than expected. In a previous study we laid the foundation of a theory of complexity and showed that because of the blind nature of evolution, and molecular and historical contingency, cells have accumulated unnecessary complexity, complexity beyond what is necessary and sufficient to describe an organism. Here we provide empirical evidence and show that unnecessary complexity has become integrated into the genome in the form of redundancy and is relevant to molecular evolution of phenotypic complexity. Unnecessary complexity creates uncertainty between molecular and phenotypic complexity, such that phenotypic complexity (CP) is higher than molecular complexity (CM), which is higher than DNA complexity (CD). The qualitative inequality in complexity is based on the following hierarchy: CP > CM > CD. This law-like relationship holds true for all complex traits, including complex diseases. We present a hypothesis of two types of variation, namely open and closed (hidden) systems, show that hidden variation provides a hitherto undiscovered “third source” of phenotypic variation, beside genotype and environment, and argue that “missing heritability” for some complex diseases is likely to be a case of “diluted heritability”. There is a need for radically new ways of thinking about the principles of genotype–phenotype relationship. Understanding how cells use hidden, pathway variation to respond to stress can shed light on why two individuals who share the same risk factors may not develop the same disease, or how cancer cells escape death.
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 | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".