ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2015
Evaluation of a two-stage framework for prediction using big genomic data.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Genome-Wide Association Study Statistical Models: A Review.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Review
- Integrating metabolomic data with machine learning approach for discovery of Q-markers from Jinqi Jiangtang preparation against type 2 diabetes.Chinese medicine · 2021Article
- 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 · 2017Article
- An algorithm for direct causal learning of influences on patient outcomes.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.