Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20650002›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010

A comparison of internal validation techniques for multifactor dimensionality reduction.

Stacey J Winham, Andrew J Slater, Alison A Motsinger-Reif

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Biomolecules · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A new explained-variance based genetic risk score for predictive modeling of disease risk.Statistical applications in genetics and molecular biology · 2012
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stacey J WinhamDepartment of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
Andrew J Slater
Alison A Motsinger-Reif
North Carolina State University · US

Funding

WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI038858 · NIAID · SOCIAL AND SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS, INC. · PI BENSON, CONSTANCE ANN · 1996 to 2008
$157.5M
STATISTICAL AND DATA MANAGEMENT CENTERU01AI038855 · NIAID · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI HUGHES, MICHAEL DAVID · 1996 to 2006
$78.1M
Virology, Immunology, and Microbiology CoreP30AI050410 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAVID M. MARGOLIS · 2001 to 2026
$76.9M
Zonisamide in Patients with Neuropathic Pain Associated with Diabetic NeuropathyM01RR000046 · NCRR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI JOY, MELANIE S · 1985 to 2008
$38.5M
VEGF VECTOR TO ISCHEMIC MYOCARDIUM W/DIFFUSE CORONARY DISEASEM01RR000047 · NCRR · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI MCQUIGGAN, MARGARET M · 1985 to 2007
$36.4M
ZOPOLRESTAT IN SUBJECTS W/ PERIPHERAL SYMMETRICAL DIABETIC POLYNEUROPATHYM01RR000096 · NCRR · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI NOVIK, YELENA · 1985 to 2008
$34.8M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI025915 · NIAID · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI MURPHY, ROBERT L. · 1987 to 2006
$15.3M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI025868 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ERON, JOSEPH J. · 1987 to 2006
$14.9M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI025859 · NIAID · INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS · PI GOLDMAN, MITCHELL · 1987 to 2008
$14.5M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI025879 · NIAID · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI LEDERMAN, MICHAEL MARCEL · 1987 to 2006
$14.0M
YOHIMBINE CHALLENGE IN PARKINSONIAN PATIENTS WITH PANIC DISORDERM01RR000044 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI GUZICK, DAVID S · 1985 to 2006
$13.8M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI027670 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BENSON, CONSTANCE ANN · 1988 to 2006
$13.7M
NCRR NIH HHS RR00044NCRR NIH HHS RR00046NCRR NIH HHS RR00047NCRR NIH HHS RR00051NCRR NIH HHS RR00052NCRR NIH HHS RR00095NCRR NIH HHS RR00096NIAID NIH HHS AI25859-19NIAID NIH HHS AI25868NIAID NIH HHS AI25879NIAID NIH HHS AI25897NIAID NIH HHS AI25903NIAID NIH HHS AI25915NIAID NIH HHS AI25924NIAID NIH HHS AI27658NIAID NIH HHS AI27659NIAID NIH HHS AI27659-18S2NIAID NIH HHS AI27660NIAID NIH HHS AI27661NIAID NIH HHS AI27664NIAID NIH HHS AI27665NIAID NIH HHS AI27666NIAID NIH HHS AI27668NIAID NIH HHS AI27670NIAID NIH HHS AI27675NIAID NIH HHS AI29193NIAID NIH HHS AI2AI13656NIAID NIH HHS AI32770NIAID NIH HHS AI32782NIAID NIH HHS AI34832NIAID NIH HHS AI38855NIAID NIH HHS AI38858NIAID NIH HHS AI46339NIAID NIH HHS AI46370NIAID NIH HHS AI46376-05NIAID NIH HHS AI46381NIAID NIH HHS AI46383NIAID NIH HHS AI46386NIAID NIH HHS AI50410NIAID NIH HHS AI54999NIGMS NIH HHS T32GM081057
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is hypothesized that common, complex diseases may be due to complex interactions between genetic and environmental factors, which are difficult to detect in high-dimensional data using traditional statistical approaches. Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR) is the most commonly used data-mining method to detect epistatic interactions. In all data-mining methods, it is important to consider internal validation procedures to obtain prediction estimates to prevent model over-fitting and reduce potential false positive findings. Currently, MDR utilizes cross-validation for internal validation. In this study, we incorporate the use of a three-way split (3WS) of the data in combination with a post-hoc pruning procedure as an alternative to cross-validation for internal model validation to reduce computation time without impairing performance. We compare the power to detect true disease causing loci using MDR with both 5- and 10-fold cross-validation to MDR with 3WS for a range of single-locus and epistatic disease models. Additionally, we analyze a dataset in HIV immunogenetics to demonstrate the results of the two strategies on real data.

resultsMDR with 3WS is computationally approximately five times faster than 5-fold cross-validation. The power to find the exact true disease loci without detecting false positive loci is higher with 5-fold cross-validation than with 3WS before pruning. However, the power to find the true disease causing loci in addition to false positive loci is equivalent to the 3WS. With the incorporation of a pruning procedure after the 3WS, the power of the 3WS approach to detect only the exact disease loci is equivalent to that of MDR with cross-validation. In the real data application, the cross-validation and 3WS analyses indicate the same two-locus model.

conclusionsOur results reveal that the performance of the two internal validation methods is equivalent with the use of pruning procedures. The specific pruning procedure should be chosen understanding the trade-off between identifying all relevant genetic effects but including false positives and missing important genetic factors. This implies 3WS may be a powerful and computationally efficient approach to screen for epistatic effects, and could be used to identify candidate interactions in large-scale genetic studies.

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticModels, GeneticAlgorithmsCausalityComputer SimulationHIV InfectionsHumansValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20650002
PMCPMC2920275
OpenAlexW1996793801

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.