Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29878078›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018

AA9int: SNP interaction pattern search using non-hierarchical additive model set.

Hui-Yi Lin, Po-Yu Huang, Dung-Tsa Chen, Heng-Yuan Tung, Thomas A Sellers, Julio M Pow-Sang, Rosalind Eeles, Doug Easton, Zsofia Kote-Jarai, Ali Amin Al Olama and 28 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

38 authors.

Hui-Yi LinBiostatistics Program, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Po-Yu HuangComputational Intelligence Technology Center, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Dung-Tsa ChenDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Heng-Yuan TungBiostatistics Program, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Thomas A SellersDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Julio M Pow-SangDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
Rosalind EelesThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Doug EastonStrangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK.
Zsofia Kote-JaraiThe Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Ali Amin Al OlamaStrangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK.
Sara BenllochStrangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK.
Kenneth MuirInstitute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Graham G GilesDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Intelligence, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Fredrik WiklundDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden.
Henrik GronbergDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, SE-17177 Stockholm, Sweden.
Christopher A HaimanDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Johanna SchleutkerDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Genetics, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku and Tyks Microbiology and Genetics.
Børge G NordestgaardDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Ruth C TravisCancer Epidemiology, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Freddie HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David E NealNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nora PashayanStrangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK.
Kay-Tee KhawCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.
Janet L StanfordDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
William J BlotInternational Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Stephen N ThibodeauDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Christiane MaierInstitute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Adam S KibelBrigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Cezary CybulskiDepartment of Genetics and Pathology, International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
Lisa Cannon-AlbrightDivision of Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, UT, USA.
Hermann BrennerDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Radka KanevaDepartment of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Molecular Medicine Center, Medical University-Sofia, 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Jyotsna BatraAustralian Prostate Cancer Research Centre-Qld, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and Schools of Life Science and Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Manuel R TeixeiraDepartment of Genetics, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal.
Hardev PandhaThe University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Yong-Jie LuCentre for Molecular Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, John Vane Science Centre, London, UK.
PRACTICAL Consortium
Jong Y ParkDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCHP30CA076292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI Christine O'Connell · 1998 to 2026
$93.5M
Gene-Gene Interactions and Their Functional Roles in Prostate Cancer AggressivenessR21CA202417 · NCI · LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER · PI LIN, HUI-YI · 2016 to 2017
$284k
Cancer Research UK 14136Cancer Research UK 17528Medical Research Council G0401527Medical Research Council G1000143Medical Research Council MR/N003284/1NCI NIH HHS P30 CA076292NCI NIH HHS R21 CA202417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: The use of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) interactions to predict complex diseases is getting more attention during the past decade, but related statistical methods are still immature. We previously proposed the SNP Interaction Pattern Identifier (SIPI) approach to evaluate 45 SNP interaction patterns/patterns. SIPI is statistically powerful but suffers from a large computation burden. For large-scale studies, it is necessary to use a powerful and computation-efficient method. The objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based mini-version of SIPI as the screening tool or solitary use and to evaluate the impact of inheritance mode and model structure on detecting SNP-SNP interactions. Results: We tested two candidate approaches: the 'Five-Full' and 'AA9int' method. The Five-Full approach is composed of the five full interaction models considering three inheritance modes (additive, dominant and recessive). The AA9int approach is composed of nine interaction models by considering non-hierarchical model structure and the additive mode. Our simulation results show that AA9int has similar statistical power compared to SIPI and is superior to the Five-Full approach, and the impact of the non-hierarchical model structure is greater than that of the inheritance mode in detecting SNP-SNP interactions. In summary, it is recommended that AA9int is a powerful tool to be used either alone or as the screening stage of a two-stage approach (AA9int+SIPI) for detecting SNP-SNP interactions in large-scale studies. Availability and implementation: The 'AA9int' and 'parAA9int' functions (standard and parallel computing version) are added in the SIPI R package, which is freely available at https://linhuiyi.github.io/LinHY_Software/. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideSoftwareAlgorithmsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29878078
PMCPMC6289141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.