ArticlePloS one2015
Assessment of whole-genome regression for type II diabetes.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic correlations between traits associated with hyperuricemia, gout, and comorbidities.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Genetic risk for schizophrenia and psychosis in Alzheimer disease.Molecular psychiatry · 2018Article
- Article
- Association of DPP4 Gene Polymorphisms with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Malaysian Subjects.PloS one · 2016Article
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
Abstract
Lifestyle and genetic factors play a large role in the development of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). Despite the important role of genetic factors, genetic information is not incorporated into the clinical assessment of T2D risk. We assessed and compared Whole Genome Regression methods to predict the T2D status of 5,245 subjects from the Framingham Heart Study. For evaluating each method we constructed the following set of regression models: A clinical baseline model (CBM) which included non-genetic covariates only. CBM was extended by adding the first two marker-derived principal components and 65 SNPs identified by a recent GWAS consortium for T2D (M-65SNPs). Subsequently, it was further extended by adding 249,798 genome-wide SNPs from a high-density array. The Bayesian models used to incorporate genome-wide marker information as predictors were: Bayes A, Bayes Cπ, Bayesian LASSO (BL), and the Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (G-BLUP). Results included estimates of the genetic variance and heritability, genetic scores for T2D, and predictive ability evaluated in a 10-fold cross-validation. The predictive AUC estimates for CBM and M-65SNPs were: 0.668 and 0.684, respectively. We found evidence of contribution of genetic effects in T2D, as reflected in the genomic heritability estimates (0.492±0.066). The highest predictive AUC among the genome-wide marker Bayesian models was 0.681 for the Bayesian LASSO. Overall, the improvement in predictive ability was moderate and did not differ greatly among models that included genetic information. Approximately 58% of the total number of genetic variants was found to contribute to the overall genetic variation, indicating a complex genetic architecture for T2D. Our results suggest that the Bayes Cπ and the G-BLUP models with a large set of genome-wide markers could be used for predicting risk to T2D, as an alternative to using high-density arrays when selected markers from large consortiums for a given complex trait or disease are unavailable.
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.