ArticleGenetics research2015
Inference of posterior inclusion probability of QTLs in Bayesian shrinkage analysis.
Article in Genetics research, 2015. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bayesian shrinkage analysis estimates all QTLs effects simultaneously, which shrinks the effect of "insignificant" QTLs close to zero so that it does not need special model selection. Bayesian shrinkage estimation usually has an excellent performance on multiple QTLs mapping, but it could not give a probabilistic explanation of how often a QTLs is included in the model, also called posterior inclusion probability, which is important to assess the importance of a QTL. In this research, two methods, FitMix and SimMix, are proposed to approximate the posterior probabilities. Under the assumption of mixture distribution of the estimated QTL effect, FitMix and SimMix mathematically and intuitively fit mixture distribution, respectively. The simulation results showed that both methods gave very reasonable estimates for posterior probabilities. We also applied the two methods to map QTLs for the North American Barley Genome Mapping Project data.
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.