ArticleGenetic epidemiology2017
Inclusion of biological knowledge in a Bayesian shrinkage model for joint estimation of SNP effects.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes.American journal of human genetics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the aim of improving detection of novel single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genetic association studies, we propose a method of including prior biological information in a Bayesian shrinkage model that jointly estimates SNP effects. We assume that the SNP effects follow a normal distribution centered at zero with variance controlled by a shrinkage hyperparameter. We use biological information to define the amount of shrinkage applied on the SNP effects distribution, so that the effects of SNPs with more biological support are less shrunk toward zero, thus being more likely detected. The performance of the method was tested in a simulation study (1,000 datasets, 500 subjects with ∼200 SNPs in 10 linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks) using a continuous and a binary outcome. It was further tested in an empirical example on body mass index (continuous) and overweight (binary) in a dataset of 1,829 subjects and 2,614 SNPs from 30 blocks. Biological knowledge was retrieved using the bioinformatics tool Dintor, which queried various databases. The joint Bayesian model with inclusion of prior information outperformed the standard analysis: in the simulation study, the mean ranking of the true LD block was 2.8 for the Bayesian model versus 3.6 for the standard analysis of individual SNPs; in the empirical example, the mean ranking of the six true blocks was 8.5 versus 9.3 in the standard analysis. These results suggest that our method is more powerful than the standard analysis. We expect its performance to improve further as more biological information about SNPs becomes available.
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.