ArticleJournal of data mining in genomics & proteomics2013
Gradient Boosting as a SNP Filter: an Evaluation Using Simulated and Hair Morphology Data.
Article in Journal of data mining in genomics & proteomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A first look at the ability to use genomic prediction for improving the ratooning ability of sugarcane.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Prediction performance of linear models and gradient boosting machine on complex phenotypes in outbred mice.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Experimental evaluation of genomic selection prediction for rust resistance in sugarcane.The plant genome · 2021Article
- A new method for exploring gene-gene and gene-environment interactions in GWAS with tree ensemble methods and SHAP values.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Interspecific Sample Prioritization Can Improve QTL Detection With Tree-Based Predictive Models.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Beyond Genes: Re-Identifiability of Proteomic Data and Its Implications for Personalized Medicine.Genes · 2019Review
- Genomic Prediction of Breeding Values Using a Subset of SNPs Identified by Three Machine Learning Methods.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Collective feature selection to identify crucial epistatic variants.BioData mining · 2018Article
- Investigation of regions impacting inbreeding depression and their association with the additive genetic effect for United States and Australia Jersey dairy cattle.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- Knowns and unknowns for psychophysiological endophenotypes: integration and response to commentaries.Psychophysiology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Typically, genome-wide association studies consist of regressing the phenotype on each SNP separately using an additive genetic model. Although statistical models for recessive, dominant, SNP-SNP, or SNP-environment interactions exist, the testing burden makes an evaluation of all possible effects impractical for genome-wide data. We advocate a two-step approach where the first step consists of a filter that is sensitive to different types of SNP main and interactions effects. The aim is to substantially reduce the number of SNPs such that more specific modeling becomes feasible in a second step. We provide an evaluation of a statistical learning method called "gradient boosting machine" (GBM) that can be used as a filter. GBM does not require an a priori specification of a genetic model, and permits inclusion of large numbers of covariates. GBM can therefore be used to explore multiple GxE interactions, which would not be feasible within the parametric framework used in GWAS. We show in a simulation that GBM performs well even under conditions favorable to the standard additive regression model commonly used in GWAS, and is sensitive to the detection of interaction effects even if one of the interacting variables has a zero main effect. The latter would not be detected in GWAS. Our evaluation is accompanied by an analysis of empirical data concerning hair morphology. We estimate the phenotypic variance explained by increasing numbers of highest ranked SNPs, and show that it is sufficient to select 10K-20K SNPs in the first step of a two-step approach.
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.