RetroFun‐RVS: A Retrospective Family‐Based Framework for Rare Variant Analysis Incorporating Functional Annotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large proportion of genetic variations involved in complex diseases are rare and located within noncoding regions, making the interpretation of underlying biological mechanisms a daunting task. Although technical and methodological progress has been made to annotate the genome, current disease-rare-variant association tests incorporating such annotations suffer from two major limitations. First, they are generally restricted to case-control designs of unrelated individuals, which often require tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals to achieve sufficient power. Second, they were not evaluated with region-based annotations needed to interpret the causal regulatory mechanisms. In this work, we propose RetroFun-RVS, a new retrospective family-based score test, incorporating functional annotations. A critical feature of the proposed method is to aggregate genotypes to compare against rare variant-sharing expectations among affected family members. Through extensive simulations, we have demonstrated that RetroFun-RVS integrating networks based on 3D genome contacts as functional annotations reach greater power over the region-wide test, other strategies to include subregions and competing methods. Also, the proposed framework shows robustness to non-informative annotations, maintaining its power when causal variants are spread across regions. Asymptotic p-values are susceptible to Type I error inflation when the number of families with rare variants is small, and a bootstrap procedure is recommended in these instances. Application of RetroFun-RVS is illustrated on whole genome sequence in the Eastern Quebec Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Kindred Study with networks constructed from 3D contacts and epigenetic data on neurons. In summary, the integration of functional annotations corresponding to regions or networks with transcriptional impacts in rare variant tests appears promising to highlight regulatory mechanisms involved in complex diseases.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".