Leveraging family history in genetic association analyses of binary traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Considering relatives’ health history in logistic regression for case–control genome-wide association studies (CC-GWAS) may provide new information that increases accuracy and power to detect disease associated genetic variants. We conducted simulations and analyzed type 2 diabetes (T2D) data from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) to compare two methods, liability threshold model conditional on both case–control status and family history (LT-FH) and Fam-meta, which incorporate family history into CC-GWAS. Results In our simulation scenario of trait with modest T2D heritability (h2 = 0.28), variant minor allele frequency ranging from 1% to 50%, and 1% of phenotype variance explained by the genetic variants, Fam-meta had the highest overall power, while both methods incorporating family history were more powerful than CC-GWAS. All three methods had controlled type I error rates, while LT-FH was the most conservative with a lower-than-expected error rate. In addition, we observed a substantial increase in power of the two familial history methods compared to CC-GWAS when the prevalence of the phenotype increased with age. Furthermore, we showed that, when only the phenotypes of more distant relatives were available, Fam-meta still remained more powerful than CC-GWAS, confirming that leveraging disease history of both close and distant relatives can increase power of association analyses. Using FHS data, we confirmed the well-known association of TCF7L2 region with T2D at the genome-wide threshold of P-value < 5 × 10–8, and both familial history methods increased the significance of the region compared to CC-GWAS. We identified two loci at 5q35 (ADAMTS2) and 5q23 (PRR16), not previously reported for T2D using CC-GWAS and Fam-meta; both genes play a role in cardiovascular diseases. Additionally, CC-GWAS detected one more significant locus at 13q31 (GPC6) reported associated with T2D-related traits. Conclusions Overall, LT-FH and Fam-meta had higher power than CC-GWAS in simulations, especially using phenotypes that were more prevalent in older age groups, and both methods detected known genetic variants with lower P-values in real data application, highlighting the benefits of including family history in genetic association studies.
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 | 0.027 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".