Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27590269›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Tilting the lasso by knowledge-based post-processing.

Kukatharmini Tharmaratnam, Matthew Sperrin, Thomas Jaki, Sjur Reppe, Arnoldo Frigessi

Abstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Incorporating prior knowledge into regularized regression.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021
    Article
  2. 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.

Kukatharmini TharmaratnamDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Matthew SperrinInstitute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. matthew.sperrin@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351-9960
Thomas JakiDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sjur ReppeDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Arnoldo FrigessiOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is useful to incorporate biological knowledge on the role of genetic determinants in predicting an outcome. It is, however, not always feasible to fully elicit this information when the number of determinants is large. We present an approach to overcome this difficulty. First, using half of the available data, a shortlist of potentially interesting determinants are generated. Second, binary indications of biological importance are elicited for this much smaller number of determinants. Third, an analysis is carried out on this shortlist using the second half of the data.

resultsWe show through simulations that, compared with adaptive lasso, this approach leads to models containing more biologically relevant variables, while the prediction mean squared error (PMSE) is comparable or even reduced. We also apply our approach to bone mineral density data, and again final models contain more biologically relevant variables and have reduced PMSEs.

conclusionOur method leads to comparable or improved predictive performance, and models with greater face validity and interpretability with feasible incorporation of biological knowledge into predictive models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsKnowledgeBone DensityComputer SimulationHumansModels, TheoreticalReproducibility of ResultsBone mineral densityElicitationLasso

Identifiers

PMID27590269
PMCPMC5010709

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.