Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33514397›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2021

A comparison of methods for interpreting random forest models of genetic association in the presence of non-additive interactions.

Alena Orlenko, Jason H Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Interpretable machine learning for dementia: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

2 authors.

Alena OrlenkoInstitute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1757-293X
Jason H MooreInstitute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. jhmoore@upenn.edu.

Funding

Bioinformatics Strategies for Genome-Wide Association StudiesR01LM010098 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H., WILLIAMS, SCOTT MATTHEW · 2009 to 2023
$5.1M
Biomedical Computing and Informatics Strategies for Infectious Disease ResearchR01AI116794 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Biomedical Computing and Informatics Strategies for Precision MedicineR01LM012601 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HUANG, XIUZHEN, MOORE, JASON H. · 2017 to 2020
$1.8M
Bioinformatics Strategies for Multidimensional Brain Imaging GeneticsR01LM011360 · NLM · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOORE, JASON H., SAYKIN, ANDREW J · 2012 to 2015
$1.4M
Informatics Algorithms for Genomic Analysis of Brain Imaging DataR01LM013463 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H., SAYKIN, ANDREW J · 2020 to 2023
$1.4M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI116794NIH HHS AI116794NIH HHS LM010098NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010098NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011360NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-additive interactions among genes are frequently associated with a number of phenotypes, including known complex diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Detecting interactions requires careful selection of analytical methods, and some machine learning algorithms are unable or underpowered to detect or model feature interactions that exhibit non-additivity. The Random Forest method is often employed in these efforts due to its ability to detect and model non-additive interactions. In addition, Random Forest has the built-in ability to estimate feature importance scores, a characteristic that allows the model to be interpreted with the order and effect size of the feature association with the outcome. This characteristic is very important for epidemiological and clinical studies where results of predictive modeling could be used to define the future direction of the research efforts. An alternative way to interpret the model is with a permutation feature importance metric which employs a permutation approach to calculate a feature contribution coefficient in units of the decrease in the model's performance and with the Shapely additive explanations which employ cooperative game theory approach. Currently, it is unclear which Random Forest feature importance metric provides a superior estimation of the true informative contribution of features in genetic association analysis.

resultsTo address this issue, and to improve interpretability of Random Forest predictions, we compared different methods for feature importance estimation in real and simulated datasets with non-additive interactions. As a result, we detected a discrepancy between the metrics for the real-world datasets and further established that the permutation feature importance metric provides more precise feature importance rank estimation for the simulated datasets with non-additive interactions.

conclusionsBy analyzing both real and simulated data, we established that the permutation feature importance metric provides more precise feature importance rank estimation in the presence of non-additive interactions.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseEpistasisFeature importancesGlaucomaMachine learningRandom forestSimulation

Identifiers

PMID33514397
PMCPMC7847145

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.