Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839630›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Deep learning captures the effect of epistasis in multifactorial diseases.

Vladislav Perelygin, Alexey Kamelin, Nikita Syzrantsev, Layal Shaheen, Anna Kim, Nikolay Plotnikov, Anna Ilinskaya, Valery Ilinsky, Alexander Rakitko, Maria Poptsova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A survey on deep learning for polygenic risk scores.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Harnessing deep learning for SNP-based disease prediction in genomics.International journal of information technology : an official journal of Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management · 2024
    Article
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

10 authors.

Vladislav PerelyginInternational Laboratory of Bioinformatics, AI and Digital Sciences Institute, Faculty of Computer Science, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Alexey KamelinInternational Laboratory of Bioinformatics, AI and Digital Sciences Institute, Faculty of Computer Science, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Nikita SyzrantsevGenotek Ltd., Moscow, Russia.
Layal ShaheenGenotek Ltd., Moscow, Russia.
Anna KimGenotek Ltd., Moscow, Russia.
Nikolay PlotnikovGenotek Ltd., Moscow, Russia.
Anna IlinskayaEligens SIA, Mārupe, Latvia.
Valery IlinskyEligens SIA, Mārupe, Latvia.
Alexander RakitkoInternational Laboratory of Bioinformatics, AI and Digital Sciences Institute, Faculty of Computer Science, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
Maria PoptsovaInternational Laboratory of Bioinformatics, AI and Digital Sciences Institute, Faculty of Computer Science, HSE University, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Polygenic risk score (PRS) prediction is widely used to assess the risk of diagnosis and progression of many diseases. Routinely, the weights of individual SNPs are estimated by the linear regression model that assumes independent and linear contribution of each SNP to the phenotype. However, for complex multifactorial diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and others, association between individual SNPs and disease could be non-linear due to epistatic interactions. The aim of the presented study is to explore the power of non-linear machine learning algorithms and deep learning models to predict the risk of multifactorial diseases with epistasis. Methods: Simulated data with 2- and 3-loci interactions and tested three different models of epistasis: additive, multiplicative and threshold, were generated using the GAMETES. Penetrance tables were generated using PyTOXO package. For machine learning methods we used multilayer perceptron (MLP), convolutional neural network (CNN) and recurrent neural network (RNN), Lasso regression, random forest and gradient boosting models. Performance of machine learning models were assessed using accuracy, AUC-ROC, AUC-PR, recall, precision, and F1 score. Results: First, we tested ensemble tree methods and deep learning neural networks against LASSO linear regression model on simulated data with different types and strength of epistasis. The results showed that with the increase of strength of epistasis effect, non-linear models significantly outperform linear. Then the higher performance of non-linear models over linear was confirmed on real genetic data for multifactorial phenotypes such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, and psoriasis. From non-linear models, gradient boosting appeared to be the best model in obesity and psoriasis while deep learning methods significantly outperform linear approaches in type 1 diabetes. Conclusion: Overall, our study underscores the efficacy of non-linear models and deep learning approaches in more accurately accounting for the effects of epistasis in simulations with specific configurations and in the context of certain diseases.

Indexed as

deep learningepistasismachine learningmultifactorial diseasesobesitypolygenic risk scorepsoriasistype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID39839630
PMCPMC11746092

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.