ArticleScientific reports2016
Some pitfalls in application of functional data analysis approach to association studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. 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.
- Article
- Gene Region Association Analysis of Longitudinal Quantitative Traits Based on a Function-On-Function Regression Model.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- A Bayesian approach to joint modeling of matrix-valued imaging data and treatment outcome with applications to depression studies.Biometrics · 2020Article
- A generalized model for combining dependent SNP-level summary statistics and its extensions to statistics of other levels.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most effective methods for gene-based mapping employs functional data analysis, which smoothes data using standard basis functions. The full functional linear model includes a functional representation of genotypes and their effects, while the beta-smooth only model smoothes the genotype effects only. Benefits and limitations of the beta-smooth only model should be studied before using it in practice. Here we analytically compare the full and beta-smooth only models under various scenarios. We show that when the full model employs two sets of basis functions equal in type and number, genotypes smoothing is eliminated from the model and it becomes analytically equivalent to the beta-smooth only model. If the basis functions differ only in type, genotypes smoothing is also eliminated from the full model, but the type of basis functions used for smoothing genotype effects becomes redefined. This leads to misinterpretation of the results and may reduce statistical power. When basis functions differ in number, no analytical comparison of the full and beta-smooth only models is possible. However, we show that the numbers of basis functions set unequal can become equal during the analysis, and the full model becomes disadvantageous.
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.