ArticleBioData mining2021
A comparison of methods for interpreting random forest models of genetic association in the presence of non-additive interactions.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interpretable machine learning for dementia: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023Pooled it
- A novel hybrid CCD-ML approach for predicting permeability alterations in carbonate reservoir rocks during waterflooding under scale inhibitor treatment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Risk Prediction in Cardio-Oncology: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review.JACC. CardioOncology · 2026Review
- Associations of blood cell indices with the risk of ankylosing spondylitis: A retrospective case-control and machine learning modeling study.SAGE open medicine · 2026Article
- Morphometric trait analysis and machine learning-based yield modeling in wood apple (Feronia limonia L.).BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Hybrid Diagnostic Framework for Interpretable Bearing Fault Classification Using CNN and Dual-Stage Feature Selection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Detecting genetic interactions with visible neural networks.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Predicting anorexia nervosa treatment efficacy: an explainable machine learning approach.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Comparing statistical learning methods for complex trait prediction from gene expression.PloS one · 2025Article
- Web-based machine learning application for interpretable prediction of prolonged length of stay after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: a retrospective cohort study with explainable AI.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Comparing statistical learning methods for complex trait prediction from gene expression.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Protein characteristics substantially influence the propensity of activity cliffs among kinase inhibitors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Automated quantitative trait locus analysis (AutoQTL).BioData mining · 2023Article
- A Surgeon's Guide to Artificial Intelligence-Driven Predictive Models.The American surgeon · 2023Article
- Article
- Toward characterizing cardiovascular fitness using machine learning based on unobtrusive data.PloS one · 2023Article
- The promise of automated machine learning for the genetic analysis of complex traits.Human genetics · 2022Review
- What makes a good prediction? Feature importance and beginning to open the black box of machine learning in genetics.Human genetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.