ArticlePloS one2014
Analyzing genome-wide association studies with an FDR controlling modification of the Bayesian Information Criterion.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of Driver Epistatic Gene Pairs Combining Germline and Somatic Mutations in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- BICOSS: Bayesian iterative conditional stochastic search for GWAS.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- High-LD SNP markers exhibiting pleiotropic effects on salt tolerance at germination and seedlings stages in spring wheat.Plant molecular biology · 2022Article
- Selecting predictive biomarkers from genomic data.PloS one · 2022Article
- A genome-wide association study of plasma concentrations of warfarin enantiomers and metabolites in sub-Saharan black-African patients.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Bayesian and frequentist analysis of an Austrian genome-wide association study of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Controlling the Rate of GWAS False Discoveries.Genetics · 2017Article
- An Adaptive Ridge Procedure for L0 Regularization.PloS one · 2016Article
- Further improvements to linear mixed models for genome-wide association studies.Scientific reports · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevailing method of analyzing GWAS data is still to test each marker individually, although from a statistical point of view it is quite obvious that in case of complex traits such single marker tests are not ideal. Recently several model selection approaches for GWAS have been suggested, most of them based on LASSO-type procedures. Here we will discuss an alternative model selection approach which is based on a modification of the Bayesian Information Criterion (mBIC2) which was previously shown to have certain asymptotic optimality properties in terms of minimizing the misclassification error. Heuristic search strategies are introduced which attempt to find the model which minimizes mBIC2, and which are efficient enough to allow the analysis of GWAS data. Our approach is implemented in a software package called MOSGWA. Its performance in case control GWAS is compared with the two algorithms HLASSO and d-GWASelect, as well as with single marker tests, where we performed a simulation study based on real SNP data from the POPRES sample. Our results show that MOSGWA performs slightly better than HLASSO, where specifically for more complex models MOSGWA is more powerful with only a slight increase in Type I error. On the other hand according to our simulations GWASelect does not at all control the type I error when used to automatically determine the number of important SNPs. We also reanalyze the GWAS data from the Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium and compare the findings of the different procedures, where MOSGWA detects for complex diseases a number of interesting SNPs which are not found by other methods.
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.