Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30081816›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2018

Understanding the potential bias of variance components estimators when using genomic models.

Beatriz C D Cuyabano, A Christian Sørensen, Peter Sørensen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Beatriz C D CuyabanoCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. bia.cdc@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0060-8879
A Christian SørensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Peter SørensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic models that link phenotypes to dense genotype information are increasingly being used for infering variance parameters in genetics studies. The variance parameters of these models can be inferred using restricted maximum likelihood, which produces consistent, asymptotically normal estimates of variance components under the true model. These properties are not guaranteed to hold when the covariance structure of the data specified by the genomic model differs substantially from the covariance structure specified by the true model, and in this case, the likelihood of the model is said to be misspecified. If the covariance structure specified by the genomic model provides a poor description of that specified by the true model, the likelihood misspecification may lead to incorrect inferences.

resultsThis work provides a theoretical analysis of the genomic models based on splitting the misspecified likelihood equations into components, which isolate those that contribute to incorrect inferences, providing an informative measure, defined as [Formula: see text], to compare the covariance structure of the data specified by the genomic and the true models. This comparison of the covariance structures allows us to determine whether or not bias in the variance components estimates is expected to occur.

conclusionsThe theory presented can be used to provide an explanation for the success of a number of recently reported approaches that are suggested to remove sources of bias of heritability estimates. Furthermore, however complex is the quantification of this bias, we can determine that, in genomic models that consider a single genomic component to estimate heritability (assuming SNP effects are all i.i.d.), the bias of the estimator tends to be downward, when it exists.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticAlgorithmsAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsComputational BiologyGenomicsHumansLikelihood Functions

Identifiers

PMID30081816
PMCPMC6080367
OpenAlexW2887976729

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.