Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25053743›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2015

Kernel methods for large-scale genomic data analysis.

Xuefeng Wang, Eric P Xing, Daniel J Schaid

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Efficient large-scale genomic prediction in approximate genome-based kernel model.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Visualizing scRNA-Seq Data at Population Scale with GloScope.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Xuefeng Wang
Eric P Xing
Daniel J Schaid

Funding

Quantitative Methods for Genetic EpidemiologyR01GM065450 · NIGMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI SCHAID, DANIEL J. · 2002 to 2020
$5.6M
Genome-Transcription-Phenome-Wide Association: a new paradigm for association stuR01GM087694 · NIGMS · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI WU, WEI, XING, ERIC P · 2009 to 2014
$2.5M
Time/Space-Varying Networks of Molecular Interactions: A New Paradigm for StudyinR01GM093156 · NIGMS · CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY · PI XING, ERIC P · 2010 to 2014
$2.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS 1R01GM087694NIGMS NIH HHS 1R01GM093156NIGMS NIH HHS GM065450NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM065450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning, particularly kernel methods, has been demonstrated as a promising new tool to tackle the challenges imposed by today's explosive data growth in genomics. They provide a practical and principled approach to learning how a large number of genetic variants are associated with complex phenotypes, to help reveal the complexity in the relationship between the genetic markers and the outcome of interest. In this review, we highlight the potential key role it will have in modern genomic data processing, especially with regard to integration with classical methods for gene prioritizing, prediction and data fusion.

Indexed as

Machine LearningComputational BiologyData Interpretation, StatisticalGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsHumansLogistic ModelsModels, StatisticalPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSupport Vector Machineassociation testkernel logistic regressionkernel methodslassomachine learningpredictionstructured mapping

Identifiers

PMID25053743
PMCPMC4375394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.