ArticleGenetic epidemiology2017
Genetic risk models: Influence of model size on risk estimates and precision.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a cardiovascular diseases risk prediction model for Chinese males (CVDMCM).Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Heritability of Regional Brain Volumes in Large-Scale Neuroimaging and Genetic Studies.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disease risk estimation plays an important role in disease prevention. Many studies have found that the ability to predict risk improves as the number of risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the risk model increases. However, the width of the confidence interval of the risk estimate is often not considered in the evaluation of the risk model. Here, we explore how the risk and the confidence interval width change as more SNPs are added to the model in the order of decreasing effect size, using both simulated data and real data from studies of abdominal aortic aneurysms and age-related macular degeneration. Our results show that confidence interval width is positively correlated with model size and the majority of the bigger models have wider confidence interval widths than smaller models. Once the model size is bigger than a certain level, the risk does not shift markedly, as 100% of the risk estimates of the one-SNP-bigger models lie inside the confidence interval of the one-SNP-smaller models. We also created a confidence interval-augmented reclassification table. It shows that both more effective SNPs with larger odds ratios and less effective SNPs with smaller odds ratios contribute to the correct decision of whom to screen. The best screening strategy is selected and evaluated by the net benefit quantity and the reclassification rate. We suggest that individuals whose upper bound of their risk confidence interval is above the screening threshold, which corresponds to the population prevalence of the disease, should be screened.
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.