Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27230078›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Discovering causal interactions using Bayesian network scoring and information gain.

Zexian Zeng, Xia Jiang, Richard Neapolitan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Synthetic data generation with probabilistic Bayesian Networks.Mathematical biosciences and engineering : MBE · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Natural Language Processing for EHR-Based Computational Phenotyping.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
    Review
  17. Bayesian Network Construction and Genotype-Phenotype Inference Using GWAS Statistics.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zexian ZengDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Xia JiangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Richard NeapolitanDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. richard.neapolitan@northwestern.edu.
Northwestern University · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Tumor Environment and Metastasis (TEAM) Research ProgramP30CA060553 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Daniela E Matei · 1993 to 2026
$153.9M
A New Generation Clinical Decision Support SystemR01LM011663 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JIANG, XIA, NEAPOLITAN, RICHARD E · 2014 to 2017
$2.0M
Multidimensional Computer Adaptive Testing for Patient Reported OutcomesR01LM011962 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI NEAPOLITAN, RICHARD E · 2015 to 2018
$1.3M
Detecting Genome Wide Epistasis with Efficient Bayesian Network LearningR00LM010822 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JIANG, XIA · 2012 to 2014
$565k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA060553NLM NIH HHS R00 LM010822NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011663NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe problem of learning causal influences from data has recently attracted much attention. Standard statistical methods can have difficulty learning discrete causes, which interacting to affect a target, because the assumptions in these methods often do not model discrete causal relationships well. An important task then is to learn such interactions from data. Motivated by the problem of learning epistatic interactions from datasets developed in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), researchers conceived new methods for learning discrete interactions. However, many of these methods do not differentiate a model representing a true interaction from a model representing non-interacting causes with strong individual affects. The recent algorithm MBS-IGain addresses this difficulty by using Bayesian network learning and information gain to discover interactions from high-dimensional datasets. However, MBS-IGain requires marginal effects to detect interactions containing more than two causes. If the dataset is not high-dimensional, we can avoid this shortcoming by doing an exhaustive search.

resultsWe develop Exhaustive-IGain, which is like MBS-IGain but does an exhaustive search. We compare the performance of Exhaustive-IGain to MBS-IGain using low-dimensional simulated datasets based on interactions with marginal effects and ones based on interactions without marginal effects. Their performance is similar on the datasets based on marginal effects. However, Exhaustive-IGain compellingly outperforms MBS-IGain on the datasets based on 3 and 4-cause interactions without marginal effects. We apply Exhaustive-IGain to investigate how clinical variables interact to affect breast cancer survival, and obtain results that agree with judgements of a breast cancer oncologist.

conclusionsWe conclude that the combined use of information gain and Bayesian network scoring enables us to discover higher order interactions with no marginal effects if we perform an exhaustive search. We further conclude that Exhaustive-IGain can be effective when applied to real data.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, GeneticFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansBayesian networkBreast cancer survivalCauseEpistasisInformation gainInteractionLow-dimensional

Identifiers

PMID27230078
PMCPMC4880828
OpenAlexW2405013394

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.