ArticleGenetics2019
Best Prediction of the Additive Genomic Variance in Random-Effects Models.
Article in Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic prediction with ARG-powered linear algebra.Genetics · 2026Article
- Complex traits and candidate genes: estimation of genetic variance components across multiple genetic architectures.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Partitioning gene-level contributions to complex-trait heritability by allele frequency identifies disease-relevant genes.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Accounting for Group-Specific Allele Effects and Admixture in Genomic Predictions: Theory and Experimental Evaluation in Maize.Genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The additive genomic variance in linear models with random marker effects can be defined as a random variable that is in accordance with classical quantitative genetics theory. Common approaches to estimate the genomic variance in random-effects linear models based on genomic marker data can be regarded as estimating the unconditional (or prior) expectation of this random additive genomic variance, and result in a negligence of the contribution of linkage disequilibrium (LD). We introduce a novel best prediction (BP) approach for the additive genomic variance in both the current and the base population in the framework of genomic prediction using the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (gBLUP) method. The resulting best predictor is the conditional (or posterior) expectation of the additive genomic variance when using the additional information given by the phenotypic data, and is structurally in accordance with the genomic equivalent of the classical additive genetic variance in random-effects models. In particular, the best predictor includes the contribution of (marker) LD to the additive genomic variance and possibly fully eliminates the missing contribution of LD that is caused by the assumptions of statistical frameworks such as the random-effects model. We derive an empirical best predictor (eBP) and compare its performance with common approaches to estimate the additive genomic variance in random-effects models on commonly used genomic datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.