A multi-threaded approach to genotype pattern mining for detecting digenic disease genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To locate disease-causing DNA variants on the human gene map, the customary approach has been to carry out a genome-wide association study for one variant after another by testing for genotype frequency differences between individuals affected and unaffected with disease. So-called digenic traits are due to the combined effects of two variants, often on different chromosomes, while individual variants may have little or no effect on disease. Machine learning approaches have been developed to find variant pairs underlying digenic traits. However, many of these methods have large memory requirements so that only small datasets can be analyzed. The increasing availability of desktop computers with large numbers of processors and suitable programming to distribute the workload evenly over all processors in a machine make a new and relatively straightforward approach possible, that is, to evaluate all existing variant and genotype pairs for disease association. We present a prototype of such a method with two components, Vpairs and Gpairs, and demonstrate its advantages over existing implementations of such well-known algorithms as Apriori and FP-growth. We apply these methods to published case-control datasets on age-related macular degeneration and Parkinson disease and construct an ROC curve for a large set of genotype patterns.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".