Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Semi-parametric efficient estimation of small genetic effects in large-scale population cohorts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read TarGene gives semi-parametric efficient, double-robust estimates of genetic effects and interactions.

desk verdict A solid, well-executed targeted-learning application to genetic effects; the joint-positivity gap for interactions is a real limitation but not a fatal one, and the paper deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14675 v1 pith:QLPDGBGK submitted 2025-05-20 stat.AP

Olivier Labayle , Breeshey Roskams-Hieter , Joshua Slaughter , Kelsey Tetley-Campbell , Mark J. van der Laan , Chris P. Ponting , Sjoerd Viktor Beentjes , Ava Khamseh This is my paper
classification stat.AP MSC 62G0562G2062P10
keywords targetedminimumloss-basedestimationsemi-parametricefficiencyaverageinteractioneffectk-pointinteractionsepistasisgene-environmentsieveplateauvarianceUKBiobank
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces TarGene, a workflow for estimating genetic effects and interactions in biobank-scale cohorts without imposing a parametric form on the relationship between genotype, covariates, and trait. The target quantity is the k-point interaction, a direct generalisation of the average treatment effect, and it is estimated with one-step estimators and targeted minimum loss-based estimators that are doubly robust and asymptotically efficient. The authors argue that standard linear mixed model analyses can produce inflated p-values under model misspecification, and they support this with a phenome-wide FTO study in the UK Biobank where TarGene finds 63 significant traits at 5% FDR versus 159 for a linear mixed model. In simulations with a 1% minor allele frequency filter, the estimators achieve nominal coverage and controlled type I error, making the method a candidate replacement for LMM-based association and interaction testing in large cohorts.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the efficient influence function of the k-point interaction estimand $\Psi^{(k)}_{a(0),a(1)}(P)$, built as a linear combination of average-treatment-effect influence functions, together with a clever covariate $H(g)(A,W)=\sum_{s\in\{0,1\}^k}(-1)^{k-(s_1+\cdots+s_k)}\frac{1\{A=a(s)\}}{g(A,W)}$ used in the TMLE targeting step. The paper also uses an exact second-order remainder whose double-robust product structure guarantees $o_P(n^{-1/2})$ bias when the outcome regression and propensity score are estimated at $n^{-1/4}$ rates, and sieve plateau variance estimators built from the genetic relationship matrix to account for relatedness among participants.

What would settle it

Run the paper's null simulation for a variant with minor allele frequency 0.005 and 500,000 samples, using the canonical wTMLE with XGBoost nuisance fits; if the 95% confidence interval covers the true zero effect well below 95% and coverage returns to nominal only after applying the 0.01 filter, the positivity assumption is confirmed as the gatekeeper of the method's guarantees.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that TarGene estimators close the statistical gap due to model misspecification and the causal gap due to population stratification, so that reported p-values from conventional GWAS may be inflated and contain more false discoveries than acknowledged. To show this, the paper defines the average interaction effect (AIE) as a k-point generalisation of the average treatment effect, derives its efficient influence function and double-robust second-order remainder, and constructs one-step, TMLE, weighted TMLE, and cross-validated versions of each. Simulation studies using the full UK Biobank structure show coverage at the nominal level once variants with minor allele frequency below 0.01 are excluded. In applications, TarGene replicates five of nine previously reported red-hair epistatic pairs, finds 39 traits with significant non-linear allelic effects at FTO, and demonstrates gene-by-environment interactions with deprivation indices, with effect-size estimates lower than those from linear mixed models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is positivity: every genotype or genotype-environment combination being compared must occur with probability bounded away from zero in every covariate stratum, which fails for rare variants; the paper restores nominal coverage by excluding variants with minor allele frequency below 0.01.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, LMM-based GWAS p-values can be anti-conservative for variants with non-linear or non-additive effects, so some reported associations at a fixed FDR threshold would not survive a correctly specified model.
  • TarGene supplies estimates and confidence intervals for k-point gene-gene and gene-environment interactions on an additive scale, which is directly interpretable for public-health effect sizes rather than multiplicative logistic odds ratios.
  • The method requires a minor allele frequency filter near 1%, so its nominal coverage guarantee applies to common variants; rare-variant analyses need larger samples or genotype aggregation to satisfy positivity.
  • The sieve plateau variance correction is computationally feasible and changes UKB variance estimates by about 1.4%, suggesting it will matter more in family-based or more ancestrally diverse cohorts than in the UKB white subset.
  • The released pipeline makes a PheWAS with a comprehensive super learner run in about 30 hours and projects a 600,000-variant GWAS in about 375 hours on 200 cores, so semi-parametric estimation is practical at biobank scale.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to pair TarGene with rare-variant collapsing or burden tests that aggregate genotypes across a gene, raising stratum counts so the positivity assumption can hold without excluding low-frequency variants.
  • The five-of-nine replication of red-hair epistasis may reflect the additive rather than multiplicative interaction scale; a direct comparison of both scales on the same data would separate scale differences from true non-replication.
  • Because the causal gap from linkage disequilibrium remains open, TarGene's effect sizes are best read as locus-level associations; combining it with fine-mapping or knockoff-based selection would test whether the reported non-linear and interaction effects localise to the same causal variant.
  • The $2^k$ testing burden per locus rules out naive genome-wide interaction scans; a two-stage protocol that screens with light models and confirms with the full super learner, as the paper's runtime recommendations suggest, is the practical deployment path.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces TarGene, a targeted-learning workflow for semi-parametric efficient estimation of genetic main effects and k-point interactions at biobank scale. The estimand is an Average Interaction Effect, defined as a signed sum of covariate-adjusted genotype-contrast means; the authors derive its efficient influence function and exact second-order remainder, then construct one-step estimators, TMLE, weighted TMLE, and cross-validated versions. A sieve-plateau variance estimator based on the genetic relationship matrix is adapted to account for dependence among individuals. The method is evaluated in two UK Biobank-based simulation studies, one null and one with a neural-network generative model, and applied to FTO PheWAS, gene-environment, gene-gene, and three-way interaction analyses. The paper claims nominal coverage and type I error control provided a 1% minor allele frequency threshold is imposed, and argues that commonly reported LMM p-values may be inflated.

Significance. If the guarantees hold, this is a substantial contribution to statistical genetics: it brings semi-parametric efficient and double-robust estimation, with open-source scalable software, to genetic main effects and interactions in cohorts of hundreds of thousands of individuals. The mathematical derivations in Section 2 are standard but correctly assembled for the k-point interaction parameter, and the realistic simulation framework built on UK Biobank data is a genuine strength, as are the public implementations TMLE.jl and TarGene. The most valuable part of the paper is the combination of rigorous influence-function theory with a scalable pipeline. The main risk is that the headline type I error guarantee is conditional on a positivity assumption that the paper verifies only through a marginal minor-allele-frequency filter, which is not sufficient for interaction estimands.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5.1 / §2.1, Eq. (10)] The paper's type I error claim rests on a marginal filter p(V=v)≥0.01, but the formal positivity condition in Eq. (10) is joint: δ < P(A=a(s)|W=w) < 1−δ for every genotype combination in the interaction. For k-point interactions, a marginal MAF filter does not ensure joint genotype support. For example, two independent variants with MAF 0.05 have a double-heterozygote frequency of about 0.9%, and conditioning on principal components can lower this further; Table S1 lists joint (genotype,outcome) frequencies as low as 2.1×10^{-6}. The null simulation in Fig. 2A shows sub-50% coverage for some estimands without filtering, and Figs. 2B/3B report coverage aggregated after marginal filtering rather than AIE coverage as a function of joint stratum frequency. The Discussion's guarantee 'provided the minor allele frequency is bounded from below by 0.01' therefore substitutes a marginal condition for the joint condition in Eq. (10); that substitution is not justified for interactions. Please report coverage conditional on joint propensity or joint stratum frequency, or restrict the formal type I error guarantee to estimands satisfying joint positivity.
  2. [§2.5 / §3.5 / Fig. 5D] The sieve-plateau variance estimator is a stated contribution, but it is not validated in either simulation. Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 evaluate coverage only with the i.i.d. variance estimator; the application in Fig. 5D and Fig. S5B shows a variance increase of about 1.4% and 'little difference' in p-values, which does not establish that the SP correction restores nominal coverage under realistic relatedness. Since the abstract and contribution list emphasize variance correction for population dependence, the method should be evaluated in simulations with a known relatedness or stratification structure, or the claims about 'realistic p-values correctly accounting for population dependence' should be scaled back.
  3. [§4.2.1, Fig. 5B and Introduction] The statement that GeneATLAS results 'likely contain an inflated set of false discoveries' goes beyond the evidence shown. TarGene and GeneATLAS estimate different quantities: TarGene targets a genotype contrast with flexible nuisance learning and six principal components, while GeneATLAS uses a linear mixed model with an additive effect. No calibration simulation or ground-truth benchmark is supplied for the PheWAS comparison, so the observed p-value shift could reflect differences in estimand, sample filtering, or variance estimation rather than FDR inflation. This claim should be rephrased as a hypothesis or supported by a calibration analysis.
  4. [§6 Discussion] The Discussion states that 'TarGene estimators address any statistical gap due to model misspecification' despite the paper's own simulations showing sub-50% coverage for some estimands in the absence of positivity filtering (Figs. 2A and 3A) and despite the earlier caveat in the Introduction that the causal gap due to LD remains. The sentence should be qualified to the settings in which the required positivity and nuisance-rate conditions hold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3] The p-value '1.09×10^6' should read '1.09×10^{-6}'.
  2. [§2.5, Eq. (62)] The sieve-plateau estimator as written in Eq. (62) sums uncentered products D_i D_j; if the empirical mean of D is not exactly zero after targeting, this is not the covariance term in Eq. (60). Please add the appropriate centering or explain why it is negligible.
  3. [Footnote 2, §2.4] The statement that 'we are conservative and simply do not test genotype changes for which the positivity threshold is not met' should be justified with respect to multiple testing: excluding unsupported contrasts changes the estimand set and the testing burden, which is not obviously conservative.
  4. [§3.5.2] The text says that cross-validated XGBoost estimators have larger bias than their canonical counterparts and suggests this may be due to using only three folds; this is plausible but should be stated as a hypothesis, since the bootstrap bias estimates are not accompanied by standard errors.
  5. [§4.4] The paragraph reporting the replication of published epistatic pairs should state explicitly that two pairs were excluded because they failed the marginal positivity threshold, since this affects the interpretation of the replication rate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the semi-parametric estimators are derived from standard influence-function theory, and self-citations supply definitions and background rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's estimands. The k-point interaction parameter is defined in Eq. 7 with attribution to Beentjes and Khamseh (2020), but the paper's own contribution is the derivation of the EIF (Lemma 2.1) as a signed sum of per-treatment EIFs, which follows from the linearity of gradients, not from the cited paper. The one-step and TMLE constructions in Eqs. 29-36 use standard semiparametric theory (Pfanzagl-Wefelmeyer, van der Laan-Rubin), and the Appendix A.1 proof verifies the weighted fluctuation solves the EIF by direct differentiation. The sieve plateau variance estimator is imported from Davies and van der Laan (2014), an external prior theorem with stated weak-dependence assumptions; it is not fitted to the paper's data and does not assume the paper's conclusions. Simulations define ground truth through the authors' generative models, but the estimators under evaluation are not given access to those generative models, so no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The main limitation, replacing the joint propensity positivity condition in Section 2.1 with a marginal MAF of at least 0.01 filter in Section 3.5.1, is a robustness or correctness concern about the conditions for asymptotic coverage, not a circular derivation. The paper does not invoke a self-citation chain to force its choice of estimator, and no equation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard TMLE theory, the positivity condition, and a weak-dependence assumption for the sieve plateau correction. No new physical or scientific entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen inputs are the positivity threshold, number of PCs, and various hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Minor allele frequency (positivity) threshold = 0.01
    Hand-selected threshold used to exclude genotype changes from coverage and type I error calculations; the method does not control type I error below this frequency.
  • Number of principal components = 6
    Used as confounders; chosen by scree plot inspection in Figures S1 and S6.
  • Cross-validation folds K = 3 in simulations; 3 to 20 adaptively in applications
    Trade-off between computational cost and estimator performance; the paper notes K=3 may cause overfitting with XGBoost in small samples.
  • Sieve plateau cutoff tau_0 = data-dependent (plateau)
    Selected by identifying a plateau in the variance curve computed over 100 thresholds.
  • Nuisance model hyperparameters = varies
    Details of GLMNet, XGBoost, HAL, SNNE, and Super Learner are partially specified; exact reproduction settings are not given in the text.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The true propensity score satisfies δ < g0(w) < 1−δ for some δ>0, all w, and all treatments.
    Stated in Section 2.1; required for the EIF and TMLE to be well-defined. Violated by rare variants, forcing the paper's 0.01 MAF threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper Selected treatment variables are independent given the sources of population stratification W.
    Stated near Equation 1 in Section 2.1 and used to justify applying the AIE estimand to UKB epistasis analyses; untested for interacting variants in LD.
  • standard math Both Q0 and g0 are estimated at rates whose product is o(n^{-1/2}) (e.g., n^{-1/4} each), and the empirical process term is controlled by Donsker assumptions or sample splitting.
    Section 2.3 and Eq. 18; standard TMLE conditions, cited to Benkeser et al. 2017. Not verified beyond the cross-validation scheme.
  • domain assumption The dependence among units is weak enough that the sieve plateau variance estimator is consistent and the variance plateaus as a function of cutoff tau.
    Section 2.5 cites Davies and van der Laan 2014, Theorem 1; the theorem's conditions are not restated. The paper finds a small 1.4% variance increase in its main example.
  • standard math The statistical model is the nonparametric model M0.
    Section 2.1; standard for TMLE.
  • domain assumption If causal claims are made, W includes all confounders of variant-outcome relationships.
    The paper mainly claims statistical effects and explicitly leaves the causal gap due to LD open in Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-parametric efficient estimation of small genetic effects in large-scale population cohorts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QLPDGBGK

@misc{pith2026250514675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-parametric efficient estimation of small genetic effects in large-scale population cohorts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QLPDGBGK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14675}
}
read the original abstract

Population genetics seeks to quantify DNA variant associations with traits or diseases, as well as interactions among variants and with environmental factors. Computing millions of estimates in large cohorts in which small effect sizes are expected, necessitates minimising model-misspecification bias to control false discoveries. We present TarGene, a unified statistical workflow for the semi-parametric efficient and double robust estimation of genetic effects including k-point interactions among categorical variables in the presence of confounding and weak population dependence. k-point interactions, or Average Interaction Effects (AIEs), are a direct generalisation of the usual average treatment effect (ATE). We estimate AIEs with cross-validated and/or weighted versions of Targeted Minimum Loss-based Estimators (TMLE) and One-Step Estimators (OSE). The effect of dependence among data units on variance estimates is corrected by using sieve plateau variance estimators based on genetic relatedness across the units. We present extensive realistic simulations to demonstrate power, coverage, and control of type I error. Our motivating application is the targeted estimation of genetic effects on trait, including two-point and higher-order gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, in large-scale genomic databases such as UK Biobank and All of Us. All cross-validated and/or weighted TMLE and OSE for the AIE k-point interaction, as well as ATEs, conditional ATEs and functions thereof, are implemented in the general purpose Julia package TMLE.jl. For high-throughput applications in population genomics, we provide the open-source Nextflow pipeline and software TarGene which integrates seamlessly with modern high-performance and cloud computing platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14675 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Generating processes of simulation studies. Empirical marginal distributions are coloured in blue while learnt conditional densities are coloured in orange. In both cases (P Cs, C) are sampled jointly using the empirical marginal distribution. Left: The null sampler independently samples from the empirical marginal distributions of each Y , Vj . This results in the theoretical null hypothesis of no effect. Right: Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Null Simulation Coverage. Each plot is divided in 4 quadrants and presents coverage results. Rows represent the estimators (OSE, wTMLE) and columns the resampling strategies (CV, Canonical). (A-B) Coverage distributions across estimates when (A) no positivity threshold is imposed and, (B) a positivity threshold of ≥ 0.01 is imposed. Each quadrant is further sub-divided by sample size, 500 000 (top) and 50 000 (botto… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Realistic Simulation Coverage. The panel is organised exactly as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power analysis of weighted TMLE. The plot is organised in 4 quadrants. Rows indicate sample sizes with n = 50 000 (top) and n = 500 000 (bottom), columns indicate the model used to fit nuisance functions with GLMNet (left) and XGBoost (right), and colour indicates the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TarGene results and comparison with the linear mixed model on UKB data. (A) Inference results. Comparison of methods to estimate the effect size of rs1421085 on body mass index (BMI; UK Biobank Data-Field 23104). All double robust estimators share the same initial fit …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (D) Sieve variance correction. P-values obtained from two variance estimation methods for rs1421085. In red, the individuals in the UK Biobank are assumed to be independent and identically distributed (iid), while in blue, a sieve correction method is applied to accoun…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    V., Verweij, K

    Abdellaoui, A., Dolan, C. V., Verweij, K. J. H., and Nivard, M. G. (2022). Gene--environment correlations across geographic regions affect genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics

    2022

  4. [4]

    Beentjes, S. V. and Khamseh, A. (2020). Higher-order interactions in statistical physics and machine learning: A model-independent solution to the inverse problem at equilibrium. Phys. Rev. E , 102:053314

    2020

  5. [5]

    Benkeser, D., Carone, M., Laan, M. J. V. D., and Gilbert, P. B. (2017). Doubly robust nonparametric inference on the average treatment effect . Biometrika , 104(4):863--880

    2017

  6. [6]

    and Van der Laan, M

    Benkeser, D. and Van der Laan, M. J. (2016). The highly adaptive lasso estimator. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) , pages 689--696

    2016

  7. [7]

    C., Havulinna, A

    Benner, C., Spencer, C. C., Havulinna, A. S., Salomaa, V., Ripatti, S., and Pirinen, M. (2016). Finemap: efficient variable selection using summary data from genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics , 32(10):1493--1501

    2016

  8. [8]

    G., Metcalf, G

    Bick, A. G., Metcalf, G. A., Mayo, K. R., Lichtenstein, L., Rura, S., Carroll, R. J., Musick, A., Linder, J. E., Jordan, I. K., Nagar, S. D., Sharma, S., Meller, R., Basford, M., Boerwinkle, E., Cicek, M. S., Doheny, K. F., Eichler, E. E., Gabriel, S., Gibbs, R. A., Glazer, D., Harris, P. A., Jarvik, G. P., Philippakis, A., Rehm, H. L., Roden, D. M., Thib...

    2024

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Bickel, P., Klaassen, C., Ritov, Y., and Wellner, J. (1998). Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models . Johns Hopkins series in the mathematical sciences. Springer New York

    1998

  2. [10]

    Bishop, C. M. (1994). Mixture density networks

    1994

  3. [11]

    Boyle, E., Yi, L., and Pritchard, J. (2017). An expanded view of complex traits: From polygenic to omnigenic. Cell , 6(169):1177--118

    2017

  4. [12]

    Buniello, A., MacArthur, J. A. L., Cerezo, M., Harris, L. W., Hayhurst, J., Malangone, C., McMahon, A., Morales, J., Mountjoy, E., Sollis, E., et al. (2019). The nhgri-ebi gwas catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019. N...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Bycroft, C., Freeman, C., Petkova, D., Band, G., Elliott, L. T., Sharp, K., Motyer, A., Vukcevic, D., Delaneau, O., O'Connell, J., Cortes, A., Welsh, S., Young, A., Effingham, M., McVean, G., Leslie, S., Allen, N., Donnelly, P., and Marchini, J. (2018). The uk biobank resource...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Canela-Xandri, O., Rawlik, K., and Tenesa, A. (2018). An atlas of genetic associations in uk biobank. Nature genetics , 50(11):1593--1599

    2018

  7. [15]

    and Guestrin, C

    Chen, T. and Guestrin, C. (2016). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 785--794

    2016

  8. [16]

    Chen, X. (2007). Large sample sieve estimation of semi-nonparametric models. Handbook of econometrics , 6:5549--5632

    2007

  9. [17]

    N., Kim, K.-H., Quon, G., Meuleman, W., Haugen, C., Glunk, V., Sousa, I

    Claussnitzer, M., Dankel, S. N., Kim, K.-H., Quon, G., Meuleman, W., Haugen, C., Glunk, V., Sousa, I. S., Beaudry, J. L., Puviindran, V., Abdennur, N. A., Liu, J., Svensson, P.-A., Hsu, Y.-H., Drucker, D. J., Mellgren, G., Hui, C.-C., Hauner, H., and Kellis, M. (2015). FTO Obe...

    2015

  10. [18]

    Cox, D. R. (1984). Interaction. International Statistical Review , 52(1):1--31

    1984

  11. [19]

    B., and Morgan, K

    Dasgupta, T., Rubin, D. B., and Morgan, K. L. (2015). Causal inference from 2^k factorial designs by using potential outcomes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 77(4):727--753

    2015

  12. [20]

    Davies, M. M. and van der Laan, M. J. (2014). Sieve P lateau V ariance E stimators: A N ew A pproach to C onfidence I nterval E stimation for D ependent D ata. U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series , Working Paper 322

    2014

  13. [21]

    and Imai, K

    Egami, N. and Imai, K. (2019). Causal interaction in factorial experiments: Application to conjoint analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(525):529--540

    2019

  14. [22]

    Elhaik, E. (2022). Principal component analyses (pca)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated. Scientific Reports , 12(1):14683

    2022

  15. [23]

    B., Moore, J

    Fern \'a ndez-Santiago, R., Mart \' n-Flores, N., Antonelli, F., Cerquera, C., Moreno, V., Bandres-Ciga, S., Manduchi, E., Tolosa, E., Singleton, A. B., Moore, J. H., et al. (2019). Snca and mtor pathway single nucleotide polymorphisms interact to modulate the age at onset of ...

    2019

  16. [24]

    B., Benkeser, D., Roels, S., Stieh, D

    Fong, Y., McDermott, A. B., Benkeser, D., Roels, S., Stieh, D. J., Vandebosch, A., Le Gars, M., Van Roey, G. A., Houchens, C. R., Martins, K., Jayashankar, L., Castellino, F., Amoa-Awua, O., Basappa, M., Flach, B., Lin, B. C., Moore, C., Naisan, M., Naqvi, M., Narpala, S., O'C...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Foygel, R. B. and Cand \`e s, E. J. (2015). Controlling the false discovery rate via knockoffs . The Annals of Statistics , 43(5):2055 -- 2085

    2015

  18. [26]

    M., Timpson, N

    Frayling, T. M., Timpson, N. J., Weedon, M. N., Zeggini, E., Freathy, R. M., Lindgren, C. M., Perry, J. R. B., Elliott, K. S., Lango, H., Rayner, N. W., Shields, B., Harries, L. W., Barrett, J. C., Ellard, S., Groves, C. J., Knight, B., Patch, A.-M., Ness, A. R., Ebrahim, S., ...

    2007

  19. [27]

    Friedman, J., Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of statistical software , 33(1):1

    2010

  20. [28]

    D., and Stegle, O

    Fusi, N., Lippert, C., Lawrence, N. D., and Stegle, O. (2014). Warped linear mixed models for the genetic analysis of transformed phenotypes. Nature Communications , 5(1):4890

    2014

  21. [29]

    Gaziano, J. M., Concato, J., Brophy, M., Fiore, L., Pyarajan, S., Breeling, J., Whitbourne, S., Deen, J., Shannon, C., Humphries, D., Guarino, P., Aslan, M., Anderson, D., LaFleur, R., Hammond, T., Schaa, K., Moser, J., Huang, G., Muralidhar, S., Przygodzki, R., and O'Leary, T...

    2016

  22. [30]

    B., Montefiori, D

    Gilbert, P. B., Montefiori, D. C., McDermott, A. B., Fong, Y., Benkeser, D., Deng, W., Zhou, H., Houchens, C. R., Martins, K., Jayashankar, L., Castellino, F., Flach, B., Lin, B. C., O'Connell, S., McDanal, C., Eaton, A., Sarzotti-Kelsoe, M., Lu, Y., Yu, C., Borate, B., van de...

    2022

  23. [31]

    V., Lee, H., Ho, M., Concato, J., and van der Laan, M

    Gruber, S., Phillips, R. V., Lee, H., Ho, M., Concato, J., and van der Laan, M. J. (2024). Targeted learning: Toward a future informed by real-world evidence. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research , 16(1):11--25

    2024

  24. [32]

    V., Lee, H., and Van der Laan, M

    Gruber, S., Phillips, R. V., Lee, H., and Van der Laan, M. J. (2022). Data-adaptive selection of the propensity score truncation level for inverse-probability–weighted and targeted maximum likelihood estimators of marginal point treatment effects. American Journal of Epidemiol...

    2022

  25. [33]

    V., Balzer, L

    Havlir, D. V., Balzer, L. B., Charlebois, E. D., Clark, T. D., Kwarisiima, D., Ayieko, J., Kabami, J., Sang, N., Liegler, T., Chamie, G., Camlin, C. S., Jain, V., Kadede, K., Atukunda, M., Ruel, T., Shade, S. B., Ssemmondo, E., Byonanebye, D. M., Mwangwa, F., Owaraganise, A., ...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Haykin, S. (1998). Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation . Prentice Hall PTR

    1998

  27. [35]

    Hedrick, P. W. (2012). What is the evidence for heterozygote advantage selection? Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 27(12):698--704

    2012

  28. [36]

    Henderson, C. (1975). Use of relationships among sires to increase accuracy of sire evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science , 58(11):1731--1738

    1975

  29. [37]

    and Robins, J

    Hernan, M. and Robins, J. (2023). Causal Inference . Chapman & Hall/CRC Monographs on Statistics & Applied Probab. CRC Press

    2023

  30. [38]

    Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., and White, H. (1989). Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural networks , 2(5):359--366

    1989

  31. [39]

    and Mackay, T

    Huang, W. and Mackay, T. F. C. (2016). The genetic architecture of quantitative traits cannot be inferred from variance component analysis. PLOS Genetics , 12(11):1--15

    2016

  32. [40]

    D., Chambaz, A., Franklin, J

    Ju, C., Gruber, S., Lendle, S. D., Chambaz, A., Franklin, J. M., Wyss, R., Schneeweiss, S., and van der Laan, M. J. (2019). Scalable collaborative targeted learning for high-dimensional data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research , 28(2):532--554

    2019

  33. [41]

    A., Davis, J

    King, E. A., Davis, J. W., and Degner, J. F. (2019). Are drug targets with genetic support twice as likely to be approved? revised estimates of the impact of genetic support for drug mechanisms on the probability of drug approval. PLOS Genetics , 15(12):1--20

    2019

  34. [42]

    V., Hejazi, N

    Li, H., Rosete, S., Coyle, J., Phillips, R. V., Hejazi, N. S., Malenica, I., Arnold, B. F., Benjamin-Chung, J., Mertens, A., Colford Jr, J. M., et al. (2022). Evaluating the robustness of targeted maximum likelihood estimators via realistic simulations in nutrition interventio...

    2022

  35. [43]

    M., Davidson, R

    Lippert, C., Listgarten, J., Liu, Y., Kadie, C. M., Davidson, R. I., and Heckerman, D. (2011). Fast linear mixed models for genome-wide association studies. Nature Methods , 8(10):833--835

    2011

  36. [44]

    K., Vilhj \'a lmsson, B

    Loh, P.-R., Tucker, G., Bulik-Sullivan, B. K., Vilhj \'a lmsson, B. J., Finucane, H. K., Salem, R. M., Chasman, D. I., Ridker, P. M., Neale, B. M., Berger, B., et al. (2015). Efficient bayesian mixed-model analysis increases association power in large cohorts. Nature genetics ...

    2015

  37. [45]

    Mackay, T. F. C. and Anholt, R. R. H. (2024). Pleiotropy, epistasis and the genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Nature Reviews Genetics , 25(9):639--657

    2024

  38. [46]

    A., Ziyatdinov, A., Benner, C., O’Dushlaine, C., Barber, M., Boutkov, B., et al

    Mbatchou, J., Barnard, L., Backman, J., Marcketta, A., Kosmicki, J. A., Ziyatdinov, A., Benner, C., O’Dushlaine, C., Barber, M., Boutkov, B., et al. (2021). Computationally efficient whole-genome regression for quantitative and binary traits. Nature genetics , 53(7):1097--1103

    2021

  39. [47]

    R., Colthurst, T., Yun, T., Furlotte, N

    McCaw, Z. R., Colthurst, T., Yun, T., Furlotte, N. A., Carroll, A., Alipanahi, B., McLean, C. Y., and Hormozdiari, F. (2022). Deep N ull models non-linear covariate effects to improve phenotypic prediction and association power. Nature Communications , 13(1):241

    2022

  40. [48]

    J., Zhu, H., Spence, J

    Milind, N., Smith, C. J., Zhu, H., Spence, J. P., and Pritchard, J. K. (2024). Buffering and non-monotonic behavior of gene dosage response curves for human complex traits. medRxiv

    2024

  41. [49]

    V., Painter, J

    Minikel, E. V., Painter, J. L., Dong, C. C., and Nelson, M. R. (2024). Refining the impact of genetic evidence on clinical success. Nature , 629(8012):624--629

    2024

  42. [50]

    D., Pairo-Castineira, E., Rawlik, K., Canela-Xandri, O., Rees, J., Sims, D., Tenesa, A., and Jackson, I

    Morgan, M. D., Pairo-Castineira, E., Rawlik, K., Canela-Xandri, O., Rees, J., Sims, D., Tenesa, A., and Jackson, I. J. (2018a). Genome-wide study of hair colour in uk biobank explains most of the snp heritability. Nature communications , 9(1):5271

    2018

  43. [51]

    D., Pairo-Castineira , E., Rawlik, K., Canela-Xandri , O., Rees, J., Sims, D., Tenesa, A., and Jackson, I

    Morgan, M. D., Pairo-Castineira , E., Rawlik, K., Canela-Xandri , O., Rees, J., Sims, D., Tenesa, A., and Jackson, I. J. (2018b). Genome-wide study of hair colour in UK Biobank explains most of the SNP heritability. Nature Communications , 9:5271

    2018

  44. [52]

    S., Zhou, W., Abbott, L., Wigdor, E

    Palmer, D. S., Zhou, W., Abbott, L., Wigdor, E. M., Baya, N., Churchhouse, C., Seed, C., Poterba, T., King, D., Kanai, M., Bloemendal, A., and Neale, B. M. (2023a). Analysis of genetic dominance in the uk biobank. Science , 379(6639):1341--1348

    2023

  45. [53]

    S., Zhou, W., Abbott, L., Wigdor, E

    Palmer, D. S., Zhou, W., Abbott, L., Wigdor, E. M., Baya, N., Churchhouse, C., Seed, C., Poterba, T., King, D., Kanai, M., Bloemendal, A., and Neale, B. M. (2023b). Analysis of genetic dominance in the uk biobank. Science , 379(6639):1341--1348

    2023

  46. [54]

    Parikh, H., Varjao, C., Xu, L., and Tchetgen, E. T. (2022). Validating causal inference methods. In International conference on machine learning , pages 17346--17358. PMLR

    2022

  47. [55]

    and Wefelmeyer, W

    Pfanzagl, J. and Wefelmeyer, W. (1985a). Contributions To A General Asymptotic Statistical Theory . Statistics & Risk Modeling , 3(3-4):379--388

    1985

  48. [56]

    and Wefelmeyer, W

    Pfanzagl, J. and Wefelmeyer, W. (1985b). Contributions to a general asymptotic statistical theory. Statistics & Risk Modeling , 3(3-4):379--388

    1985

  49. [57]

    V., Van Der Laan, M

    Phillips, R. V., Van Der Laan, M. J., Lee, H., and Gruber, S. (2023). Practical considerations for specifying a super learner. International Journal of Epidemiology , 52(4):1276--1285

    2023

  50. [58]

    K., Manley, G

    Pirracchio, R., Yue, J. K., Manley, G. T., van der Laan, M. J., Hubbard, A. E., the TRACK-TBI Investigators including Wayne A Gordon, Lingsma, H. F., Maas, A. I., Mukherjee, P., Okonkwo, D. O., Schnyer, D. M., Valadka, A. B., and Yuh, E. L. (2018). Collaborative targeted maxim...

    2018

  51. [59]

    E., Gruber, S., van der Laan, M

    Porter, K. E., Gruber, S., van der Laan, M. J., and Sekhon, J. S. (2011). The relative performance of targeted maximum likelihood estimators. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 7(1):0000102202155746791308

    2011

  52. [60]

    Prechelt, L. (1998). Automatic early stopping using cross validation: quantifying the criteria. Neural networks , 11(4):761--767

    1998

  53. [61]

    L., Patterson, N

    Price, A. L., Patterson, N. J., Plenge, R. M., Weinblatt, M. E., Shadick, N. A., and Reich, D. (2006). Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nature genetics , 38(8):904--909

    2006

  54. [62]

    M., Meader, S., Ponting, C

    Rands, C. M., Meader, S., Ponting, C. P., and Lunter, G. (2014). 8.2\ turnover across functional element classes in the human lineage. PLoS genetics , 10(7):e1004525

    2014

  55. [63]

    M., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L

    Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L. P. (1994). Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 89(427):846--866

    1994

  56. [64]

    Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66(5):688--701

    1974

  57. [65]

    E., Lok, J

    Schnitzer, M. E., Lok, J. J., and Gruber, S. (2016). Variable selection for confounder control, flexible modeling and collaborative targeted minimum loss-based estimation in causal inference. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 12(1):97--115

    2016

  58. [66]

    Schuler, A., Jung, K., Tibshirani, R., Hastie, T., and Shah, N. (2017). Synth-validation: Selecting the best causal inference method for a given dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00083

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sesia, M., Bates, S., Cand \`e s, E., Marchini, J., and Sabatti, C. (2021). False discovery rate control in genome-wide association studies with population structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118(40)

    2021

  60. [68]

    M., Lucas, A., Frase, A., Van Steen, K., Schrodi, S

    Singhal, P., Veturi, Y., Dudek, S. M., Lucas, A., Frase, A., Van Steen, K., Schrodi, S. J., Fasel, D., Weng, C., Pendergrass, R., et al. (2023). Evidence of epistasis in regions of long-range linkage disequilibrium across five complex diseases in the uk biobank and emerge data...

    2023

  61. [69]

    and Van der Laan, M

    Sofrygin, O. and Van der Laan, M. J. (2017). Semi-parametric estimation and inference for the mean outcome of the single time-point intervention in a causally connected population. Journal of Causal Inference , 5(1)

    2017

  62. [70]

    F., Stacey, S

    Sulem, P., Gudbjartsson, D. F., Stacey, S. N., Helgason, A., Rafnar, T., Magnusson, K. P., Manolescu, A., Karason, A., Palsson, A., Thorleifsson, G., Jakobsdottir, M., Steinberg, S., P \'a lsson, S., Jonasson, F., Sigurgeirsson, B., Thorisdottir, K., Ragnarsson, R., Benediktsd...

    2007

  63. [71]

    R., Axenovich, T

    Svishcheva, G. R., Axenovich, T. I., Belonogova, N. M., van Duijn, C. M., and Aulchenko, Y. S. (2012). Rapid variance components--based method for whole-genome association analysis. Nature Genetics , 44(10):1166--1170

    2012

  64. [72]

    and van der Laan, M

    Tuglus, C. and van der Laan, M. J. (2009). Modified FDR controlling procedure for multi-stage analyses. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology , 8(1)

    2009

  65. [73]

    and Alwan, N

    Twaits, A. and Alwan, N. (2020). The association between area-based deprivation and change in body-mass index over time in primary school children: a population-based cohort study in hampshire, uk. International Journal of Obesity , 44:628–636

    2020

  66. [74]

    Q., Munung, N

    Uffelmann, E., Huang, Q. Q., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., Okada, Y., Martin, A. R., Martin, H. C., Lappalainen, T., and Posthuma, D. (2021). Genome-wide association studies. Nature Reviews Methods Primers , 1(1):59

    2021

  67. [75]

    and Robins, J

    Van der Laan, M. and Robins, J. (2003). Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer

    2003

  68. [76]

    van der Laan, M. J. and Gruber, S. (2010). Collaborative D ouble R obust T argeted M aximum L ikelihood E stimation. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 6(1)

    2010

  69. [77]

    Van der Laan, M. J. and Rose, S. (2011). Targeted Learning: Causal inference for observational and experimental data . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York

    2011

  70. [78]

    Van der Laan, M. J. and Rose, S. (2018). Targeted Learning in Data Science: Causal inference for complex longitudinal studies . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, Cham

    2018

  71. [79]

    Van der Laan, M. J. and Rubin, D. (2006). Targeted M aximum L ikelihood L earning. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 2(1)

    2006

  72. [80]

    Van der Vaart, A. W. (2000). Asymptotic statistics , volume 3. Cambridge university press

    2000

  73. [81]

    Van der Vaart, A. W. and Wellner, J. A. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer Science & Business Media

    1996

  74. [82]

    VanderWeele, T. J. and Knol, M. J. (2014). A tutorial on interaction. Epidemiologic Methods , 3(1):33--72

    2014

  75. [83]

    M., Wray, N

    Visscher, P. M., Wray, N. R., Zhang, Q., Sklar, P., McCarthy, M. I., Brown, M. A., and Yang, J. (2017). 10 years of gwas discovery: Biology, function, and translation. The American Journal of Human Genetics , 101(1):5--22

    2017

  76. [84]

    Wang, G., Sarkar, A., Carbonetto, P., and Stephens, M. (2020). A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 82(5):1273--1300

    2020

  77. [85]

    Wei, W.-H., Hemani, G., and Haley, C. S. (2014). Detecting epistasis in human complex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics , 15(11):722--733

    2014

  78. [86]

    E., Wray, N

    Wu, Y., Zheng, Z., Thibaut, L., Goddard, M. E., Wray, N. R., Visscher, P. M., and Zeng, J. (2024). Genome-wide fine-mapping improves identification of causal variants. medRxiv

    2024

  79. [87]

    H., Goddard, M

    Yang, J., Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E., and Visscher, P. M. (2011). Gcta: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. The American Journal of Human Genetics , 88(1):76--82

    2011

  80. [88]

    Zou, Y., Carbonetto, P., Wang, G., and Stephens, M. (2022). Fine-mapping from summary data with the ``sum of single effects'' model. PLOS Genetics , 18(7):1--24

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.