A scoping review of statistical methods to investigate colocalization between genetic associations and microRNA expression in osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Genetic colocalization analysis is a statistical method that evaluates whether two traits (e.g., osteoarthritis [OA] risk and microRNA [miRNA] expression levels) share the same or distinct genetic association signals in a locus typically identified in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This method is useful for providing insights into the biological relevance of genetic association signals, particularly in intergenic regions, which can help to elucidate disease mechanisms in OA and other complex traits. Objectives: To review the existing literature on genetic colocalization methods, assess their suitability for studying OA, and investigate their capacity to integrate miRNA data, while bearing in view their statistical assumptions. Design: We followed scoping review methodology and used Covidence software for data management. Search terms for colocalization, GWAS, and genetic or statistical models were used in the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, searched till March 4, 2024. Results: Our search returned 546 peer-reviewed papers, of which 96 were included following title/abstract and full-text screening. Based on both cumulative and annual publication counts, the most cited method for colocalization analysis was coloc. Four papers examined OA-related phenotypes, and none examined miRNA. An approach to colocalization analysis using miRNA was postulated based on further hand-searching. Conclusions: Colocalization analysis is a largely unexplored method in OA. Many of the approaches to colocalization analysis identified in this review, including the integration of GWAS and miRNA data, may help to elucidate genetic and epigenetic factors implicated in OA and other complex traits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".