Better together against genetic heterogeneity: A sex-combined joint main and interaction analysis of 290 quantitative traits in the UK Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic effects can be sex-specific, particularly for traits such as testosterone, a sex hormone. While sex-stratified analysis provides easily interpretable sex-specific effect size estimates, the presence of sex-differences in SNP effect implies a SNP×sex interaction. This suggests the usage of the often overlooked joint test, testing for an SNP's main and SNP×sex interaction effects simultaneously. Notably, even without individual-level data, the joint test statistic can be derived from sex-stratified summary statistics through an omnibus meta-analysis. Utilizing the available sex-stratified summary statistics of the UK Biobank, we performed such omnibus meta-analyses for 290 quantitative traits. Results revealed that this approach is robust to genetic effect heterogeneity and can outperform the traditional sex-stratified or sex-combined main effect-only tests. Therefore, we advocate using the omnibus meta-analysis that captures both the main and interaction effects. Subsequent sex-stratified analysis should be conducted for sex-specific effect size estimation and interpretation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".