ArticleBMC medical genomics2016
Machine learning derived risk prediction of anorexia nervosa.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Genetics- and Molecular-Pathway-Based Machine Learning Models for Neurological Disorder Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Machine learning for genetic prediction of psychiatric disorders: a systematic review.Molecular psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in eating disorder research: a scoping review with bibliometric analysis of trends, methodologies, and translational readiness (2016-2025).Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2026Article
- AI and machine learning for early identification of eating disorders: a narrative review and Indian contextual insights.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2026Review
- Inclusion of the severe and enduring anorexia nervosa phenotype in genetics research: a scoping review.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Article
- Deep Learning Framework for Complex Disease Risk Prediction Using Genomic Variations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Review of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches on Mental Health Diagnosis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Co-simulation of human digital twins and wearable inertial sensors to analyse gait event estimation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Potential benefits and limitations of machine learning in the field of eating disorders: current research and future directions.Journal of eating disorders · 2022Review
- Investigation of prediction accuracy and the impact of sample size, ancestry, and tissue in transcriptome-wide association studies.Genetic epidemiology · 2020Article
- Modeling anorexia nervosa: transcriptional insights from human iPSC-derived neurons.Translational psychiatry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnorexia nervosa (AN) is a complex psychiatric disease with a moderate to strong genetic contribution. In addition to conventional genome wide association (GWA) studies, researchers have been using machine learning methods in conjunction with genomic data to predict risk of diseases in which genetics play an important role.
methodsIn this study, we collected whole genome genotyping data on 3940 AN cases and 9266 controls from the Genetic Consortium for Anorexia Nervosa (GCAN), the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 3 (WTCCC3), Price Foundation Collaborative Group and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and applied machine learning methods for predicting AN disease risk. The prediction performance is measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), indicating how well the model distinguishes cases from unaffected control subjects.
resultsLogistic regression model with the lasso penalty technique generated an AUC of 0.693, while Support Vector Machines and Gradient Boosted Trees reached AUC's of 0.691 and 0.623, respectively. Using different sample sizes, our results suggest that larger datasets are required to optimize the machine learning models and achieve higher AUC values.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first attempt to assess AN risk based on genome wide genotype level data. Future integration of genomic, environmental and family-based information is likely to improve the AN risk evaluation process, eventually benefitting AN patients and families in the clinical setting.
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.