Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30497383›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Aggregation of experts: an application in the field of "interactomics" (detection of interactions on the basis of genomic data).

Sinan Abo Alchamlat, Frédéric Farnir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sinan Abo AlchamlatDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Sart Tilman B43, 4000, Liege, Belgium.
Frédéric FarnirDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Sart Tilman B43, 4000, Liege, Belgium. f.farnir@ulg.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3430-9930

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the successful mapping of genes involved in the determinism of numerous traits, a large part of the genetic variation remains unexplained. A possible explanation is that the simple models used in many studies might not properly fit the actual underlying situations. Consequently, various methods have attempted to deal with the simultaneous mapping of genomic regions, assuming that these regions might interact, leading to a complex determinism for various traits. Despite some successes, no gold standard methodology has emerged. Actually, combining several interaction mapping methods might be a better strategy, leading to positive results over a larger set of situations. Our work is a step in that direction.

resultsWe first have demonstrated why aggregating results from several distinct methods might increase the statistical power while controlling the type I error. We have illustrated the approach using 6 existing methods (namely: MDR, Boost, BHIT, KNN-MDR, MegaSNPHunter and AntEpiSeeker) on simulated and real data sets. We have used a very simple aggregation strategy: a majority vote across the best loci combinations identified by the individual methods. In order to assess the performances of our aggregation approach in problems where most individual methods tend to fail, we have simulated difficult situations where no marginal effects of individual genes exist and where genetic heterogeneity is present. we have also demonstrated the use of the strategy on real data, using a WTCCC dataset on rheumatoid arthritis. Since we have been using simplistic assumptions to infer the expected power of the aggregation method, the actual power we estimated from our simulations has turned out to be a bit smaller than theoretically expected. Results nevertheless have shown that grouping the results of several methods is advantageous in terms of power, accuracy and type I error control. Furthermore, as more methods should become available in the future, using a grouping strategy will become more advantageous since adding more methods seems to improve the performances of the aggregated method.

conclusionsThe aggregation of methods as a tool to detect genetic interactions is a potentially useful addition to the arsenal used in complex traits analyses.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideArthritis, RheumatoidComputational BiologyGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansModels, GeneticPhenotypeEpistasisGene-gene interactionGenome-wide association studyK-nearest neighborsMulti dimensional reductionSingle nucleotide polymorphism

Identifiers

PMID30497383
PMCPMC6267805

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.