ArticleBMC genetics2004
Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests.
Article in BMC genetics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
174 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Host Genomic Variation and Neuropsychological Outcomes for Pediatric Cancer Survivors.Neuropsychology review · 2023Pooled it
- A meta-analytic framework for detection of genetic interactions.Genetic epidemiology · 2016Pooled it
- Machine Learning on a Genome-wide Association Study to Predict Late Genitourinary Toxicity After Prostate Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018Trial
- Using the random forest method to detect a response shift in the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients: a cohort study.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Trial
- Identifying areas of the visual field important for quality of life in patients with glaucoma.PloS one · 2013Trial
- Use of hundreds of electrocardiographic biomarkers for prediction of mortality in postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2011Trial
- Integrated analysis of genetic and proteomic data identifies biomarkers associated with adverse events following smallpox vaccination.Genes and immunity · 2009Trial
- Article
- Decoding the genomic symphony: unravelling brain disorders through data integration and machine learning.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Review
- EnSCAN: ENsemble Scoring for prioritizing CAusative variaNts across multiplatform GWASs for late-onset alzheimer's disease.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Article
- Considerations in the search for epistasis.Genome biology · 2024Review
- [Development of a fall prediction model for community-dwelling older adults in South Korea using machine learning: a secondary data analysis].Journal of Korean biological nursing science · 2024Article
- Poor statistical power in population-based association study of gene interaction.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Review
- A novel approach to risk exposure and epigenetics-the use of multidimensional context to gain insights into the early origins of cardiometabolic and neurocognitive health.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Genetic risk assessment based on association and prediction studies.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Identifying the regional drivers of influenza-like illness in Nova Scotia, Canada, with dominance analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Antimicrobial Resistance Prediction: Challenges and Opportunities towards Practical Implementation.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Forecasting Carbon Price Using Double Shrinkage Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
114 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenome-wide association studies for complex diseases will produce genotypes on hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A logical first approach to dealing with massive numbers of SNPs is to use some test to screen the SNPs, retaining only those that meet some criterion for further study. For example, SNPs can be ranked by p-value, and those with the lowest p-values retained. When SNPs have large interaction effects but small marginal effects in a population, they are unlikely to be retained when univariate tests are used for screening. However, model-based screens that pre-specify interactions are impractical for data sets with thousands of SNPs. Random forest analysis is an alternative method that produces a single measure of importance for each predictor variable that takes into account interactions among variables without requiring model specification. Interactions increase the importance for the individual interacting variables, making them more likely to be given high importance relative to other variables. We test the performance of random forests as a screening procedure to identify small numbers of risk-associated SNPs from among large numbers of unassociated SNPs using complex disease models with up to 32 loci, incorporating both genetic heterogeneity and multi-locus interaction.
resultsKeeping other factors constant, if risk SNPs interact, the random forest importance measure significantly outperforms the Fisher Exact test as a screening tool. As the number of interacting SNPs increases, the improvement in performance of random forest analysis relative to Fisher Exact test for screening also increases. Random forests perform similarly to the univariate Fisher Exact test as a screening tool when SNPs in the analysis do not interact.
conclusionsIn the context of large-scale genetic association studies where unknown interactions exist among true risk-associated SNPs or SNPs and environmental covariates, screening SNPs using random forest analyses can significantly reduce the number of SNPs that need to be retained for further study compared to standard univariate screening methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.