MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382795050 · doi:10.1007/s12561-023-09375-9

Statistical Learning of Large-Scale Genetic Data: How to Run a Genome-Wide Association Study of Gene-Expression Data Using the 1000 Genomes Project Data

2023· article· en· W4382795050 on OpenAlexafffund
Anton Sugolov, Eric Emmenegger, Andrew H. Paterson, Lei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Biosciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiostatisticsGenetic dataGenome-wide association studyComputational biologyGenomeScale (ratio)Data miningGenetic associationComputer scienceData scienceBiologyGeneGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeographyCartographyMedicinePopulationPublic healthGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Teaching statistics through engaging applications to contemporary large-scale datasets is essential to attracting students to the field. To this end, we developed a hands-on, week-long workshop for senior high-school or junior undergraduate students, without prior knowledge in statistical genetics but with some basic knowledge in data science, to conduct their own genome-wide association study (GWAS). The GWAS was performed for open source gene expression data, using publicly available human genetics data. Assisted by a detailed instruction manual, students were able to obtain $$\sim$$ ∼ 1.4 million p-values from a real scientific study, within several days. This early motivation kept students engaged in learning the theories that support their results, including regression, data visualization, results interpretation, and large-scale multiple hypothesis testing. To further their learning motivation by emphasizing the personal connection to this type of data analysis, students were encouraged to make short presentations about how GWAS has provided insights into the genetic basis of diseases that are present in their friends or families. The appended open source, step-by-step instruction manual includes descriptions of the datasets used, the software needed, and results from the workshop. Additionally, scripts used in the workshop are archived on Github and Zenodo to further enhance reproducible research and training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.051

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in BiosciencesSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207