Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25788325›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2015

Evaluation of a two-stage framework for prediction using big genomic data.

Xia Jiang, Richard E Neapolitan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genome-Wide Association Study Statistical Models: A Review.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. New Algorithm and Software (BNOmics) for Inferring and Visualizing Bayesian Networks from Heterogeneous Big Biological and Genetic Data.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2017
    Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Xia Jiang
Richard E Neapolitan

Funding

A New Generation Clinical Decision Support SystemR01LM011663 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JIANG, XIA, NEAPOLITAN, RICHARD E · 2014 to 2017
$2.0M
Detecting Genome Wide Epistasis with Efficient Bayesian Network LearningR00LM010822 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JIANG, XIA · 2012 to 2014
$565k
NLM NIH HHS R00LM010822NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011663NLM NIH HHS R01LM011663
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are in the era of abundant 'big' or 'high-dimensional' data. These data afford us the opportunity to discover predictors of an event of interest, and to estimate occurrence of the event based on values of these predictors. For example, 'genome-wide association studies' examine millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), along with disease status. We can learn SNPs that affect disease status from these data sets, and use the knowledge learned to predict disease likelihood. Owing to the large number of features, it is difficult for many prediction methods to use all the features directly. The ReliefF algorithm ranks a set of features in terms of how well they predict a target. It can be used to identify good predictors, which can then be provided to a prediction method. We compared the performance of eight prediction methods when predicting binary outcomes using high-dimensional discrete data sets. We performed two-stage prediction, where ReliefF is used in the first stage to identify good predictors. Bayesian network (BN)-based methods performed best overall. Furthermore, ReliefF did not improve their performance. The BN-based methods use the Bayesian Dirichlet Equivalent Uniform score to evaluate candidate models, and use BN inference algorithms to perform prediction. This score and these algorithms were developed for discrete variables. This perhaps explains why they perform better in this domain. Many prediction methods are available, and researchers have little reason for choosing one over the other in the domain of binary prediction using high-dimensional data sets. Our results indicate that the best choices overall are BN-based methods.

Indexed as

GenomicsAlgorithmsEvaluation Studies as TopicGenome-Wide Association StudyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideBayesian networkbig dataGWAShigh-dimensional datapredictionSNP

Identifiers

PMID25788325
PMCPMC4652616

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.