ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Evaluation of epistasis detection methods for quantitative phenotypes.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Epistasis, or genetic interaction, has been increasingly recognized for its ubiquity and for its role in susceptibility to common human diseases, such as Alzheimer's. A wide variety of epistasis detection tools are currently available with several studies comparing the performance of methods suitable for case-control data. However, there is limited understanding of how well these tools perform with quantitative phenotypes. Methods: We identified six epistasis detection methods suitable for quantitative phenotype data: EpiSNP, Matrix Epistasis, MIDESP, PLINK Epistasis, QMDR, and REMMA. To evaluate these tools, we generated simulated datasets using EpiGEN. The datasets modeled various pairwise interactions between disease-associated SNPs, including dominant, multiplicative, recessive, and XOR interactions. Additionally, we assessed the BOOST and MDR algorithms on discretized (case-control) version of the datasets. These tools were then tested on the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) dataset for the externalizing behavior phenotype. Results: Each tool exhibited strong performance for certain interaction types, but weaker performance for others. MDR achieved the highest overall detection rate of 60%, while EpiSNP had the lowest overall detection rate of 7%. MDR and MIDESP performed best at detecting multiplicative interactions with detection rates of 54% and 41% respectively. Both MDR and MIDESP were also effective at detecting XOR interactions with detection rates of 84% and 50% respectively. PLINK Epistasis, Matrix Epistasis, and REMMA excelled at detecting dominant interactions, all achieving a 100% detection rate. On the other hand, EpiSNP was particularly effective at detecting recessive interactions with a detection rate of 66%. When analyzing the ABCD dataset, Plink Epistasis and Plink BOOST identified SNPs within the Conclusion: Since no single method consistently outperforms others across all types of epistasis, and given that the specific types of epistasis present in a dataset are often unknown, it may be more effective to use multiple epistasis detection algorithms in combination to obtain comprehensive results.
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.