Supplementary Material for: A New Strategy for Linkage Analysis under Epistasis Taking into Account Genetic Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Epistasis, the biological interaction of multiple genes modulating their individual effects, is likely omnipresent in complex diseases, and modelling epistasis in linkage studies can help detect loci with little marginal effect and detect epistatic effects themselves. We propose a complete three-step strategy for parametric linkage analysis under epistasis and heterogeneity in extended pedigrees. Methods: (1) Loci most likely involved in epistatic interactions are pre-screened using two-locus one-marker analyses. (2) Among selected loci, linkage to each locus is evaluated conditionally on linkage information at another locus under two-locus epistatic models. Linkage statistics are maximized over a space of epistatic models to avoid misspecification of model parameters. (3) Families linked to the conditioning locus are selected to deal with heterogeneity between pairs of epistatically interacting loci and other unlinked loci. Properties of conditional linkage statistics prevent the introduction of bias. Results: Simulations reveal important gains in power to detect a locus with weak marginal effect involved in epistatic interaction. Application of our methods to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in Eastern Quebec kindreds suggests epistasis between three locus pairs for bipolar disorder: 8p11-16p13, 15q11-16p13 and 18q12-15q11. Conclusion: These results suggest that the proposed strategy is powerful for tackling complex phenotypes involving epistasis and heterogeneity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.605 | 0.183 |
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".