ArticlePloS one2024
Learning epistatic polygenic phenotypes with Boolean interactions.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A simplified MyProstateScore2.0 for high-grade prostate cancer.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Article
- Patterns of Fitness and Gene Expression Epistasis Generated by Beneficial Mutations in the rho and rpoB Genes of Escherichia coli during High-Temperature Adaptation.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- A blood-based metabolomic signature predictive of risk for pancreatic cancer.Cell reports. Medicine · 2023Article
- Detecting gene-gene interactions from GWAS using diffusion kernel principal components.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Detecting epistatic drivers of human phenotypes is a considerable challenge. Traditional approaches use regression to sequentially test multiplicative interaction terms involving pairs of genetic variants. For higher-order interactions and genome-wide large-scale data, this strategy is computationally intractable. Moreover, multiplicative terms used in regression modeling may not capture the form of biological interactions. Building on the Predictability, Computability, Stability (PCS) framework, we introduce the epiTree pipeline to extract higher-order interactions from genomic data using tree-based models. The epiTree pipeline first selects a set of variants derived from tissue-specific estimates of gene expression. Next, it uses iterative random forests (iRF) to search training data for candidate Boolean interactions (pairwise and higher-order). We derive significance tests for interactions, based on a stabilized likelihood ratio test, by simulating Boolean tree-structured null (no epistasis) and alternative (epistasis) distributions on hold-out test data. Finally, our pipeline computes PCS epistasis p-values that probabilisticly quantify improvement in prediction accuracy via bootstrap sampling on the test set. We validate the epiTree pipeline in two case studies using data from the UK Biobank: predicting red hair and multiple sclerosis (MS). In the case of predicting red hair, epiTree recovers known epistatic interactions surrounding MC1R and novel interactions, representing non-linearities not captured by logistic regression models. In the case of predicting MS, a more complex phenotype than red hair, epiTree rankings prioritize novel interactions surrounding HLA-DRB1, a variant previously associated with MS in several populations. Taken together, these results highlight the potential for epiTree rankings to help reduce the design space for follow up experiments.
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.