ArticlePloS one2023
Learning high-order interactions for polygenic risk prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic risk in Alzheimer's disease.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Review
- A perspective on genetic and polygenic risk scores-advances and limitations and overview of associated tools.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Machine Learning Models of Polygenic Risk for Enhanced Prediction of Alzheimer Disease Endophenotypes.Neurology. Genetics · 2024Article
- Epistatic Features and Machine Learning Improve Alzheimer's Disease Risk Prediction Over Polygenic Risk Scores.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the framework of precision medicine, the stratification of individual genetic susceptibility based on inherited DNA variation has paramount relevance. However, one of the most relevant pitfalls of traditional Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) approaches is their inability to model complex high-order non-linear SNP-SNP interactions and their effect on the phenotype (e.g. epistasis). Indeed, they incur in a computational challenge as the number of possible interactions grows exponentially with the number of SNPs considered, affecting the statistical reliability of the model parameters as well. In this work, we address this issue by proposing a novel PRS approach, called High-order Interactions-aware Polygenic Risk Score (hiPRS), that incorporates high-order interactions in modeling polygenic risk. The latter combines an interaction search routine based on frequent itemsets mining and a novel interaction selection algorithm based on Mutual Information, to construct a simple and interpretable weighted model of user-specified dimensionality that can predict a given binary phenotype. Compared to traditional PRSs methods, hiPRS does not rely on GWAS summary statistics nor any external information. Moreover, hiPRS differs from Machine Learning-based approaches that can include complex interactions in that it provides a readable and interpretable model and it is able to control overfitting, even on small samples. In the present work we demonstrate through a comprehensive simulation study the superior performance of hiPRS w.r.t. state of the art methods, both in terms of scoring performance and interpretability of the resulting model. We also test hiPRS against small sample size, class imbalance and the presence of noise, showcasing its robustness to extreme experimental settings. Finally, we apply hiPRS to a case study on real data from DACHS cohort, defining an interaction-aware scoring model to predict mortality of stage II-III Colon-Rectal Cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin.
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.