Comparing mixed models and Random Forest association tests using <scp>naturalgwas</scp> and a Striped Bass <scp>SNP</scp> data set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we used the phenotype simulation package naturalgwas to test the performance of Zhao's Random Forest method in comparison to an uncorrected Random Forest test, latent factor mixed models (LFMM), genome-wide efficient mixed models (GEMMA), and confounder adjusted linear regression (CATE). We created 400 sets of phenotypes, corresponding to five effect sizes and two, five, 15, or 30 causal loci, simulated from two empirical data sets containing SNPs from Striped Bass representing three and 13 populations. All association methods were evaluated for their ability to detect genotype-phenotype associations based on power, false discovery rates, and number of false positives. Genomic inflation was highest for uncorrected Random Forest and LFMM tests and lowest for Gemma and Zhao's Random Forest. All association tests had similar power to detect causal loci, and Zhao's Random Forest had the lowest false discovery rate in all scenarios. To measure the performance of association tests in small data sets with few loci surrounding a causal gene we also ran analyses again after removing causal loci from each data set. All association tests were only able to find true positives, defined as loci located within 30 kbp of a causal locus, in 3%-18% of simulations. In contrast, at least one false positive was found in 17%-44% of simulations. Zhao's Random Forest again identified the fewest false positives of all association tests studied. The ability to test the power of association tests for individual empirical data sets can be an extremely useful first step when designing a GWAS 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".