Variant ranking pipeline for complex familial disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying genetic susceptibility factors for complex disorders remains a challenging task. To analyze collections of small and large pedigrees where genetic heterogeneity is likely, but biological commonalities are plausible, we have developed a weights-based pipeline to prioritize variants and genes. The Weights-based vAriant Ranking in Pedigrees (WARP) pipeline prioritizes variants using 5 weights: disease incidence rate, number of cases in a family, genome fraction shared amongst cases in a family, allele frequency and variant deleteriousness. Weights, except for the population allele frequency weight, are normalized between 0 and 1. Weights are combined multiplicatively to produce family-specific-variant weights that are then averaged across all families in which the variant is observed to generate a multifamily weight. Sorting multifamily weights in descending order creates a ranked list of variants and genes for further investigation. WARP was validated using familial melanoma sequence data from the European Genome-phenome Archive. The pipeline identified variation in known germline melanoma genes POT1, MITF and BAP1 in 4 out of 13 families (31%). Analysis of the other 9 families identified several interesting genes, some of which might have a role in melanoma. WARP provides an approach to identify disease predisposing genes in studies with small and large pedigrees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.012 |
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".