Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29228715›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

Bayesian and frequentist analysis of an Austrian genome-wide association study of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas.

Philipp Hofer, Michael Hagmann, Stefanie Brezina, Erich Dolejsi, Karl Mach, Gernot Leeb, Andreas Baierl, Stephan Buch, Hedwig Sutterlüty-Fall, Judith Karner-Hanusch and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Interactions ofCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019
    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

24 authors.

Philipp HoferInstitute of Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Michael HagmannCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Section for Medical Statistics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stefanie BrezinaInstitute of Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Erich DolejsiCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Section for Medical Statistics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Karl MachHospital Oberpullendorf, Oberpullendorf, Austria.
Gernot LeebHospital Oberpullendorf, Oberpullendorf, Austria.
Andreas BaierlDepartment of Statistics and Operations Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stephan BuchUniversity Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Hedwig Sutterlüty-FallInstitute of Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Judith Karner-HanuschDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Michael M BergmannDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas Bachleitner-HofmannDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Anton StiftDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Armin GergerDivision of Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Katharina RötzerDivision of Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Josef KarnerSozialmedizinisches Zentrum Süd, Vienna, Austria.
Stefan StättnerSozialmedizinisches Zentrum Süd, Vienna, Austria.
Melanie WaldenbergerHelmholtz Center Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Thomas MeitingerHelmholtz Center Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Konstantin StrauchHelmholtz Center Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Jakob LinseisenHelmholtz Center Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Christian GiegerHelmholtz Center Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Florian FrommletCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Section for Medical Statistics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andrea GsurInstitute of Cancer Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were analyzed using single marker tests in combination with stringent correction procedures for multiple testing. Thus, a substantial proportion of associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) remained undetected and may account for missing heritability in complex traits. Model selection procedures present a powerful alternative to identify associated SNPs in high-dimensional settings. In this GWAS including 1060 colorectal cancer cases, 689 cases of advanced colorectal adenomas and 4367 controls we pursued a dual approach to investigate genome-wide associations with disease risk applying both, single marker analysis and model selection based on the modified Bayesian information criterion, mBIC2, implemented in the software package MOSGWA. For different case-control comparisons, we report models including between 1-14 candidate SNPs. A genome-wide significant association of rs17659990 (P=5.43×10

Indexed as

advanced colorectal adenomascolorectal cancerGWASmodel selectionMOSGWA

Identifiers

PMID29228715
PMCPMC5716755

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.