Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26300220›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Smoking Gun or Circumstantial Evidence? Comparison of Statistical Learning Methods using Functional Annotations for Prioritizing Risk Variants.

Sarah A Gagliano, Reena Ravji, Michael R Barnes, Michael E Weale, Jo Knight

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Sarah A GaglianoCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Reena RavjiCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael R BarnesWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Michael E WealeDepartment of Medical &Molecular Genetics, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Jo KnightCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although technology has triumphed in facilitating routine genome sequencing, new challenges have been created for the data-analyst. Genome-scale surveys of human variation generate volumes of data that far exceed capabilities for laboratory characterization. By incorporating functional annotations as predictors, statistical learning has been widely investigated for prioritizing genetic variants likely to be associated with complex disease. We compared three published prioritization procedures, which use different statistical learning algorithms and different predictors with regard to the quantity, type and coding. We also explored different combinations of algorithm and annotation set. As an application, we tested which methodology performed best for prioritizing variants using data from a large schizophrenia meta-analysis by the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Results suggest that all methods have considerable (and similar) predictive accuracies (AUCs 0.64-0.71) in test set data, but there is more variability in the application to the schizophrenia GWAS. In conclusion, a variety of algorithms and annotations seem to have a similar potential to effectively enrich true risk variants in genome-scale datasets, however none offer more than incremental improvement in prediction. We discuss how methods might be evolved for risk variant prediction to address the impending bottleneck of the new generation of genome re-sequencing studies.

Indexed as

Statistics as TopicAlgorithmsArea Under CurveDatabases, GeneticGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationMutationRisk FactorsROC CurveSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID26300220
PMCPMC4642511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.