Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29246113›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2017

Comparison of weighting approaches for genetic risk scores in gene-environment interaction studies.

Anke Hüls, Ursula Krämer, Christopher Carlsten, Tamara Schikowski, Katja Ickstadt, Holger Schwender

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Anke HülsIUF-Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany. Anke.Huels@IUF-Duesseldorf.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6005-417X
Ursula KrämerIUF-Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Christopher CarlstenDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Tamara SchikowskiIUF-Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Katja IckstadtFaculty of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
Holger SchwenderMathematical Institute, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SCHW 1508/3-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeighted genetic risk scores (GRS), defined as weighted sums of risk alleles of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), are statistically powerful for detection gene-environment (GxE) interactions. To assign weights, the gold standard is to use external weights from an independent study. However, appropriate external weights are not always available. In such situations and in the presence of predominant marginal genetic effects, we have shown in a previous study that GRS with internal weights from marginal genetic effects ("GRS-marginal-internal") are a powerful and reliable alternative to single SNP approaches or the use of unweighted GRS. However, this approach might not be appropriate for detecting predominant interactions, i.e. interactions showing an effect stronger than the marginal genetic effect.

methodsIn this paper, we present a weighting approach for such predominant interactions ("GRS-interaction-training") in which parts of the data are used to estimate the weights from the interaction terms and the remaining data are used to determine the GRS. We conducted a simulation study for the detection of GxE interactions in which we evaluated power, type I error and sign-misspecification. We compared this new weighting approach to the GRS-marginal-internal approach and to GRS with external weights.

resultsOur simulation study showed that in the absence of external weights and with predominant interaction effects, the highest power was reached with the GRS-interaction-training approach. If marginal genetic effects were predominant, the GRS-marginal-internal approach was more appropriate. Furthermore, the power to detect interactions reached by the GRS-interaction-training approach was only slightly lower than the power achieved by GRS with external weights. The power of the GRS-interaction-training approach was confirmed in a real data application to the Traffic, Asthma and Genetics (TAG) Study (N = 4465 observations).

conclusionWhen appropriate external weights are unavailable, we recommend to use internal weights from the study population itself to construct weighted GRS for GxE interaction studies. If the SNPs were chosen because a strong marginal genetic effect was hypothesized, GRS-marginal-internal should be used. If the SNPs were chosen because of their collective impact on the biological mechanisms mediating the environmental effect (hypothesis of predominant interactions) GRS-interaction-training should be applied.

Indexed as

Environmental PollutionGene-Environment InteractionPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAsthmaChildComputer SimulationGenetic MarkersGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansInflammationModels, GeneticRisk FactorsGenetic MarkersExternal weightsInternal weightsPolygenic approachPowerSimulation studyTraining datasetType I error

Identifiers

PMID29246113
PMCPMC5732390

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.