ArticleInternational journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics2015
Evaluation of genetic risk scores for prediction of dichotomous outcomes.
Article in International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision Medicine in Lifestyle Medicine: The Way of the Future?American journal of lifestyle medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Substantial uncertainty exists as to whether combining multiple disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) into a genotype risk score (GRS) can improve the ability to predict the risk of disease in a clinically relevant way. We calculated the ability of a simple count GRS to predict the risk of a dichotomous outcome under both multiplicative and additive models of combined effects. We then compared the results of these simulations with the observed results of published GRS measured within multiple epidemiologic cohorts. If the combined effect of each disease-associated SNP included in a GRS is multiplicative on the risk scale, then a count GRS score should be useful for risk prediction with as few as 10-20 SNPs. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model dramatically improves risk prediction. By contrast, if the combined effect of each SNP included in a GRS is linearly additive on the risk scale, a simple count GRS is unlikely to provide clinically useful risk prediction. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model does not improve risk prediction. The combined effect of SNPs included in several published GRS measured in several well-phenotyped epidemiologic cohort studies appears to be more consistent with a linearly additive effect. A simple count GRS is unlikely to be clinically useful for predicting the risk of a dichotomous outcome. Alternative methods for constructing GRS that attempt to identify and include SNPs that demonstrate multiplicative gene-gene or gene-environment interactive effects are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26417399PMC4572087W2395683633What 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.