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.
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.
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.
- Gut microbiota impacts bone via Bacteroides vulgatus-valeric acid-related pathways.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Predict Health Care Accessibility for Texas Medicaid Gap.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Associations between an integrated component of maternal glycemic regulation in pregnancy and cord blood DNA methylation.Epigenomics · 2021Article
- PoCos: Population Covering Locus Sets for Risk Assessment in Complex Diseases.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- A Comparative Study of Five Association Tests Based on CpG Set for Epigenome-Wide Association Studies.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.