ArticleAnnals of human genetics2011
The effect of retrospective sampling on estimates of prediction error for multifactor dimensionality reduction.
Article in Annals of human genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A roadmap to multifactor dimensionality reduction methods.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2016Review
- An R package implementation of multifactor dimensionality reduction.BioData mining · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The standard in genetic association studies of complex diseases is replication and validation of positive results, with an emphasis on assessing the predictive value of associations. In response to this need, a number of analytical approaches have been developed to identify predictive models that account for complex genetic etiologies. Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR) is a commonly used, highly successful method designed to evaluate potential gene-gene interactions. MDR relies on classification error in a cross-validation framework to rank and evaluate potentially predictive models. Previous work has demonstrated the high power of MDR, but has not considered the accuracy and variance of the MDR prediction error estimate. Currently, we evaluate the bias and variance of the MDR error estimate as both a retrospective and prospective estimator and show that MDR can both underestimate and overestimate error. We argue that a prospective error estimate is necessary if MDR models are used for prediction, and propose a bootstrap resampling estimate, integrating population prevalence, to accurately estimate prospective error. We demonstrate that this bootstrap estimate is preferable for prediction to the error estimate currently produced by MDR. While demonstrated with MDR, the proposed estimation is applicable to all data-mining methods that use similar estimates.
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.