Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26243516›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical research2015

Comparison of dimension reduction-based logistic regression models for case-control genome-wide association study: principal components analysis vs. partial least squares.

Honggang Yi, Hongmei Wo, Yang Zhao, Ruyang Zhang, Junchen Dai, Guangfu Jin, Hongxia Ma, Tangchun Wu, Zhibin Hu, Dongxin Lin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical research, 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. Predict Health Care Accessibility for Texas Medicaid Gap.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Honggang YiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Hongmei WoDepartment of Public Service Management, School of KangDa.
Yang ZhaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Ruyang ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Junchen DaiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Guangfu JinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Hongxia MaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Tangchun WuInstitute of Occupational Medicine and Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China.
Zhibin HuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Dongxin LinState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Department of Etiology and Carcinogenesis, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Hongbing ShenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.
Feng ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health. fengchen@njmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With recent advances in biotechnology, genome-wide association study (GWAS) has been widely used to identify genetic variants that underlie human complex diseases and traits. In case-control GWAS, typical statistical strategy is traditional logistical regression (LR) based on single-locus analysis. However, such a single-locus analysis leads to the well-known multiplicity problem, with a risk of inflating type I error and reducing power. Dimension reduction-based techniques, such as principal component-based logistic regression (PC-LR), partial least squares-based logistic regression (PLS-LR), have recently gained much attention in the analysis of high dimensional genomic data. However, the performance of these methods is still not clear, especially in GWAS. We conducted simulations and real data application to compare the type I error and power of PC-LR, PLS-LR and LR applicable to GWAS within a defined single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) set region. We found that PC-LR and PLS can reasonably control type I error under null hypothesis. On contrast, LR, which is corrected by Bonferroni method, was more conserved in all simulation settings. In particular, we found that PC-LR and PLS-LR had comparable power and they both outperformed LR, especially when the causal SNP was in high linkage disequilibrium with genotyped ones and with a small effective size in simulation. Based on SNP set analysis, we applied all three methods to analyze non-small cell lung cancer GWAS data.

Indexed as

genome-wide association studypartial least squares-based logistic regressionpowerprincipal components analysistype I error

Identifiers

PMID26243516
PMCPMC4547378

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.