Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22752090›Full record

ReviewHuman genetics2012

Risk estimation and risk prediction using machine-learning methods.

Jochen Kruppa, Andreas Ziegler, Inke R König

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Machine Learning Research Trends in Africa: A 30 Years Overview with Bibliometric Analysis Review.Archives of computational methods in engineering : state of the art reviews · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Jochen KruppaInstitut für Medizininsche Biometrie und Statistik, Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Maria-Goeppert-Str. 1, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
Andreas Ziegler
Inke R König

Funding

NARAC The Genetics of Rheumatoid ArthritisR01AR044422 · NIAMS · NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL · PI GREGERSEN, PETER K. · 1997 to 2011
$6.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR044422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After an association between genetic variants and a phenotype has been established, further study goals comprise the classification of patients according to disease risk or the estimation of disease probability. To accomplish this, different statistical methods are required, and specifically machine-learning approaches may offer advantages over classical techniques. In this paper, we describe methods for the construction and evaluation of classification and probability estimation rules. We review the use of machine-learning approaches in this context and explain some of the machine-learning algorithms in detail. Finally, we illustrate the methodology through application to a genome-wide association analysis on rheumatoid arthritis.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAlgorithmsArthritis, RheumatoidGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID22752090
PMCPMC3432206

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.