Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24550740›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2014

Accurate and robust genomic prediction of celiac disease using statistical learning.

Gad Abraham, Jason A Tye-Din, Oneil G Bhalala, Adam Kowalczyk, Justin Zobel, Michael Inouye

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Genomic prediction of coronary heart disease.European heart journal · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review article: Follow-up of coeliac disease.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gad AbrahamMedical Systems Biology, Department of Pathology and Department of Microbiology & Immunology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia ; NICTA Victoria Research Lab, Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jason A Tye-DinThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia ; Department of Medical Biology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia ; Department of Gastroenterology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Oneil G BhalalaMedical Systems Biology, Department of Pathology and Department of Microbiology & Immunology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Adam KowalczykNICTA Victoria Research Lab, Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Justin ZobelNICTA Victoria Research Lab, Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Michael InouyeMedical Systems Biology, Department of Pathology and Department of Microbiology & Immunology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Data61 · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Practical application of genomic-based risk stratification to clinical diagnosis is appealing yet performance varies widely depending on the disease and genomic risk score (GRS) method. Celiac disease (CD), a common immune-mediated illness, is strongly genetically determined and requires specific HLA haplotypes. HLA testing can exclude diagnosis but has low specificity, providing little information suitable for clinical risk stratification. Using six European cohorts, we provide a proof-of-concept that statistical learning approaches which simultaneously model all SNPs can generate robust and highly accurate predictive models of CD based on genome-wide SNP profiles. The high predictive capacity replicated both in cross-validation within each cohort (AUC of 0.87-0.89) and in independent replication across cohorts (AUC of 0.86-0.9), despite differences in ethnicity. The models explained 30-35% of disease variance and up to ∼43% of heritability. The GRS's utility was assessed in different clinically relevant settings. Comparable to HLA typing, the GRS can be used to identify individuals without CD with ≥99.6% negative predictive value however, unlike HLA typing, fine-scale stratification of individuals into categories of higher-risk for CD can identify those that would benefit from more invasive and costly definitive testing. The GRS is flexible and its performance can be adapted to the clinical situation by adjusting the threshold cut-off. Despite explaining a minority of disease heritability, our findings indicate a genomic risk score provides clinically relevant information to improve upon current diagnostic pathways for CD and support further studies evaluating the clinical utility of this approach in CD and other complex diseases.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenomicsAllelesBiometryCeliac DiseaseFemaleGenome, HumanHaplotypesHLA AntigensHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRiskHLA Antigens

Identifiers

PMID24550740
PMCPMC3923679
OpenAlexW2091256836

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.