Modeling Secondary Phenotypes Conditional on Genotypes in Case–Control Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional case–control genetic association studies examine relationships between case–control status and one or more covariates. It is becoming increasingly common to study secondary phenotypes and their association with the original covariates. The Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA) project, a study of temporomandibular disorders (TMD), motivates this work. Numerous measures of interest are collected at enrollment, such as the number of comorbid pain conditions from which a participant suffers. Examining the potential genetic basis of these measures is of secondary interest. Assessing these associations is statistically challenging, as participants do not form a random sample from the population of interest. Standard methods may be biased and lack coverage and power. We propose a general method for the analysis of arbitrary phenotypes utilizing inverse probability weighting and bootstrapping for standard error estimation. The method may be applied to the complicated association tests used in next-generation sequencing studies, such as analyses of haplotypes with ambiguous phase. Simulation studies show that our method performs as well as competing methods when they are applicable and yield promising results for outcome types, such as time-to-event, to which other methods may not apply. The method is applied to the OPPERA baseline case–control genetic 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 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 | 0.160 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".