ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
Mining for gene-environment and gene-gene interactions: parametric and non-parametric tests for detecting variance quantitative trait loci.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Detection of variance quantitative trait loci (vQTL) can facilitate the discovery of gene-environment (GxE) and gene-gene interactions (GxG). Identifying vQTLs before direct GxE and GxG analyses can considerably reduce the number of tests and the multiple-testing penalty. Methods: Despite some methods proposed for vQTL detection, few studies have performed a head-to-head comparison simultaneously concerning false positive rates (FPRs), power, and computational time. This work compares three parametric and two non-parametric vQTL tests. Results: Simulation studies show that the deviation regression model (DRM) and Kruskal-Wallis test (KW) are the most recommended parametric and non-parametric tests, respectively. The quantile integral linear model (QUAIL, non-parametric) appropriately preserves the FPR under normally or non-normally distributed traits. However, its power is never among the optimal choices, and its computational time is much longer than that of competitors. The Brown-Forsythe test (BF, parametric) can suffer from severe inflation in FPR when SNP's minor allele frequencies <0.2. The double generalized linear model (DGLM, parametric) is not valid for non-normally distributed traits, although it is the most powerful method for normally distributed traits. Discussion: Considering the robustness (to outliers) and computation time, I chose KW to analyze four lipid traits in the Taiwan Biobank. I further showed that GxE and GxG were enriched among 30 vQTLs identified from the four lipid traits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.