ArticleGenetic epidemiology2014
Genetic prediction in the Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 sequencing data.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing data can be used to predict phenotypes from genotypes, and this corresponds to establishing a prognostic model. In extended pedigrees the relatedness of subjects provides additional information so that genetic values, fixed or random genetic components, and heritability can be estimated. At the Genetic Analysis Workshop 18, the working group on genetic prediction dealt with both establishing a prognostic model and, in one contribution, comparing standard logistic regression with robust logistic regression in a sample of unrelated affected or unaffected individuals. Results of both logistic regression approaches were similar. All other contributions to this group used extended family data, in general using the quantitative trait blood pressure. The individual contributions varied in several important aspects, such as the estimation of the kinship matrix and the estimation method. Contributors chose various approaches for model validation, including different versions of cross-validation or within-family validation. Within-family validation included model building in the upper generations and validation in later generations. The choice of the statistical model and the computational algorithm had substantial effects on computation time. If decorrelation approaches were applied, the computational burden was substantially reduced. Some software packages estimated negative eigenvalues, although eigenvalues of correlation matrices should be non-negative. Most statistical models and software packages have been developed for experimental crosses and planned breeding programs. With their specialized pedigree structures, they are not sufficiently flexible to accommodate the variability of human pedigrees in general, and improved implementations are required.
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.