Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19772641›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2009

Spatially uniform relieff (SURF) for computationally-efficient filtering of gene-gene interactions.

Casey S Greene, Nadia M Penrod, Jeff Kiralis, Jason H Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing 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

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Hierarchical Information Criterion for Variable Abstraction.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. STatistical Inference Relief (STIR) feature selection.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Article
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Casey S GreeneDepartment of Genetics, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Nadia M Penrod
Jeff Kiralis
Jason H Moore

Funding

VARIATION IN BIOACCUMULATION AND BIOMAGNIFICATION OF METALS IN NORTHERN US LAKESP42ES007373 · NIEHS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI STANTON, BRUCE A. · 1995 to 2019
$52.0M
Bioinformatics Strategies: Biodefense Vaccine ResearchR01AI059694 · NIAID · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2004 to 2012
$4.5M
Machine Learning Prediction of Cancer SusceptibilityR01LM009012 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2006 to 2014
$3.3M
Genetics Basis of Trauma RecoveryR01HD047447 · NICHD · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2005 to 2009
$1.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI059694NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD047447NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES007373NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome-wide association studies are becoming the de facto standard in the genetic analysis of common human diseases. Given the complexity and robustness of biological networks such diseases are unlikely to be the result of single points of failure but instead likely arise from the joint failure of two or more interacting components. The hope in genome-wide screens is that these points of failure can be linked to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which confer disease susceptibility. Detecting interacting variants that lead to disease in the absence of single-gene effects is difficult however, and methods to exhaustively analyze sets of these variants for interactions are combinatorial in nature thus making them computationally infeasible. Efficient algorithms which can detect interacting SNPs are needed. ReliefF is one such promising algorithm, although it has low success rate for noisy datasets when the interaction effect is small. ReliefF has been paired with an iterative approach, Tuned ReliefF (TuRF), which improves the estimation of weights in noisy data but does not fundamentally change the underlying ReliefF algorithm. To improve the sensitivity of studies using these methods to detect small effects we introduce Spatially Uniform ReliefF (SURF).

resultsSURF's ability to detect interactions in this domain is significantly greater than that of ReliefF. Similarly SURF, in combination with the TuRF strategy significantly outperforms TuRF alone for SNP selection under an epistasis model. It is important to note that this success rate increase does not require an increase in algorithmic complexity and allows for increased success rate, even with the removal of a nuisance parameter from the algorithm.

conclusionResearchers performing genetic association studies and aiming to discover gene-gene interactions associated with increased disease susceptibility should use SURF in place of ReliefF. For instance, SURF should be used instead of ReliefF to filter a dataset before an exhaustive MDR analysis. This change increases the ability of a study to detect gene-gene interactions. The SURF algorithm is implemented in the open source Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR) software package available from http://www.epistasis.org.

Identifiers

PMID19772641
PMCPMC2761303

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.