MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944987950 · doi:10.20381/ruor-30537

An Investigation of the Use of Linear Mixed Models Under an Extreme Phenotype Sampling (EPS) Design

2024· article· en· W6944987950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa - Library · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixed modelGeneralized linear mixed modelCovariatePopulation stratificationPopulationLinear modelContext (archaeology)Missing dataType I and type II errorsExtreme value theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mixed models have been used in genome-wide association studies to correct for confounding by population stratification and other forms of hidden relatedness. This class of models includes linear mixed models (LMMs) and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). This thesis presents an investigation into the use and application of LMMs within the context of extreme phenotype sampling (EPS) designs where genetic covariates are missing for some participants since genotypes are only collected on samples having extreme response variable values. We begin by exploring whether existing mixed model approaches correct for population stratification under an EPS design. These methods have been previously investigated with both continuous and case/control response variables. However, they have not been investigated in the context of EPS designs. We assess the performance of three mixed model approaches suitable for binary traits (GMMAT, LEAP and CARAT) and one linear mixed model approach (GEMMA) for continuous traits. Our investigation includes an overview of mixed model methodology applicable to binary response variables. We assess type 1 error rates and power using simulation studies with both common and rare variants scenarios. As a practical application of these mixed model techniques, we also compared methods when applied to a prostate cancer dataset collected as part of the PROtEUs study conducted in Québec, Canada that is known to have population substructure. Our simulation results show that for a common candidate variant, both LEAP and GMMAT had type 1 error rate close to the nominal value and similar power. Similar type 1 error control was observed with the analysis on the PROtEUs dataset. However, for rare variants the false positive rate remains inflated even after correction with mixed model approaches. Next, we present an Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm for fitting linear mixed models with missing genetic covariates that was motivated by EPS designs. We used the method of weights adapted for linear mixed models to handle the missing genotypes. We derive two hypothesis tests for genetic association, a likelihood ratio test using importance sampling and a Monte-Carlo based Wald test. The performance of our algorithm was then assessed. Simulation studies were used to estimate type 1 error and power. We observed type 1 error rates below the nominal values of 0.05, signifying a conservative test, and low power for all missing data scenarios considered. Moreover some point estimates appear biased. We applied our algorithm to analyze the PROtEUs dataset and although our algorithm was able to correctly estimate most of the model parameters, the genetic effect estimated using the EM approach was larger than values by other approaches. The false positive rate also seemed inflated based on the p-value distribution across 5000 genetic markers. More investigation is needed to ensure the EM-based procedure is a valid approach to handle missing genotype data, particularly from an EPS study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.243
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.243
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.056 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa - LibrarySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207