Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29713383›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2018

Collective feature selection to identify crucial epistatic variants.

Shefali S Verma, Anastasia Lucas, Xinyuan Zhang, Yogasudha Veturi, Scott Dudek, Binglan Li, Ruowang Li, Ryan Urbanowicz, Jason H Moore, Dokyoon Kim and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Systemic lupus erythematosus with high disease activity identification based on machine learning.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2023
    Article
  4. Lupus nephritis or not? A simple and clinically friendly machine learning pipeline to help diagnosis of lupus nephritis.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Brief Survey on Machine Learning in Epistasis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Review
  10. Relief-based feature selection: Introduction and review.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2018
    Review
  11. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shefali S Verma1Biomedical and Translational Bioinformatics Institute, Geisinger Health System, 100 N Academy Avenue, Danville, PA 17822 USA.
Anastasia Lucas1Biomedical and Translational Bioinformatics Institute, Geisinger Health System, 100 N Academy Avenue, Danville, PA 17822 USA.
Xinyuan Zhang2Huck Institute of Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA USA.
Yogasudha Veturi1Biomedical and Translational Bioinformatics Institute, Geisinger Health System, 100 N Academy Avenue, Danville, PA 17822 USA.
Scott Dudek1Biomedical and Translational Bioinformatics Institute, Geisinger Health System, 100 N Academy Avenue, Danville, PA 17822 USA.
Binglan Li2Huck Institute of Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA USA.
Ruowang Li3Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Richards Building, 3700 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
Ryan Urbanowicz3Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Richards Building, 3700 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
Jason H Moore3Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Richards Building, 3700 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA.
Dokyoon Kim1Biomedical and Translational Bioinformatics Institute, Geisinger Health System, 100 N Academy Avenue, Danville, PA 17822 USA.
Marylyn D Ritchie1Biomedical and Translational Bioinformatics Institute, Geisinger Health System, 100 N Academy Avenue, Danville, PA 17822 USA.
Geisinger Health System · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USPennsylvania State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning methods have gained popularity and practicality in identifying linear and non-linear effects of variants associated with complex disease/traits. Detection of epistatic interactions still remains a challenge due to the large number of features and relatively small sample size as input, thus leading to the so-called "short fat data" problem. The efficiency of machine learning methods can be increased by limiting the number of input features. Thus, it is very important to perform variable selection before searching for epistasis. Many methods have been evaluated and proposed to perform feature selection, but no single method works best in all scenarios. We demonstrate this by conducting two separate simulation analyses to evaluate the proposed collective feature selection approach.

resultsThrough our simulation study we propose a collective feature selection approach to select features that are in the "union" of the best performing methods. We explored various parametric, non-parametric, and data mining approaches to perform feature selection. We choose our top performing methods to select the union of the resulting variables based on a user-defined percentage of variants selected from each method to take to downstream analysis. Our simulation analysis shows that non-parametric data mining approaches, such as MDR, may work best under one simulation criteria for the high effect size (penetrance) datasets, while non-parametric methods designed for feature selection, such as Ranger and Gradient boosting, work best under other simulation criteria. Thus, using a collective approach proves to be more beneficial for selecting variables with epistatic effects also in low effect size datasets and different genetic architectures. Following this, we applied our proposed collective feature selection approach to select the top 1% of variables to identify potential interacting variables associated with Body Mass Index (BMI) in ~ 44,000 samples obtained from Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative (on behalf of DiscovEHR collaboration).

conclusionsIn this study, we were able to show that selecting variables using a collective feature selection approach could help in selecting true positive epistatic variables more frequently than applying any single method for feature selection via simulation studies. We were able to demonstrate the effectiveness of collective feature selection along with a comparison of many methods in our simulation analysis. We also applied our method to identify non-linear networks associated with obesity.

Indexed as

EpistasisFeature selectionNon-additive effectsNon-parametric methodsObesityParametric methods

Identifiers

PMID29713383
PMCPMC5907720
OpenAlexW2951915646

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.