Methods and Software to Analyze Gene-Environment Interactions under a Case-Mother-Control-Mother Design with Partially Missing Child Genotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The case-mother-control-mother design allows to study fetal and maternal genetic factors together with environmental exposures on early life outcomes. Mendelian constraints and conditional independence between child genotype and environmental factors enabled semiparametric likelihood methods to estimate logistic models with greater efficiency than standard logistic regression. Difficulties in child genotype collection require methods handling missing child genotype. METHODS: We review a stratified retrospective likelihood and two semiparametric likelihood approaches: a prospective one and a modified retrospective one, the latter either modeling the maternal genotype as a function of covariates or leaving their joint distribution unspecified (robust version). We also review software implementing these modeling alternatives, compare their statistical properties in a simulation study, and illustrate their application, focusing on gene-environment interactions and partially missing child genotype. RESULTS: The robust retrospective likelihood provides generally unbiased estimates, with standard errors only slightly larger than when modeling maternal genotype based on exposure. The prospective likelihood encounters maximization problems. In the application to the association of small-for-gestational-age babies with CYP2E1 and drinking water disinfection by-products, the retrospective likelihood allowed a full array of covariates, while the prospective likelihood was limited to few covariates. CONCLUSION: We recommend the robust version of the modified retrospective likelihood.
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 | 0.036 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.009 |
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".