ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Evaluation of epistasis detection methods for quantitative phenotypes.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationEpistasis, or genetic interaction, plays a crucial role in shaping complex traits and has been increasingly recognized for its widespread influence in genetic architectures. While epistasis detection has been extensively evaluated in case-control studies, its performance with quantitative phenotypes remains comparatively understudied.
resultsWe identified and evaluated six epistasis detection methods applicable to quantitative trait analysis: EpiSNP, Matrix Epistasis, MIDESP, PLINK Epistasis, QMDR, and REMMA. Using the EpiGEN simulator, we generated synthetic datasets modeling four classes of pairwise SNP interactions-dominant, multiplicative, recessive, and XOR. We also assessed BOOST and MDR algorithms using discretized (case-control) versions of the same datasets. Performance varied notably by interaction type: REMMA achieved the highest overall detection rate (55%), particularly excelling with dominant interactions (100%). MDR excelled with multiplicative (57%) and XOR (69%) interactions. Meanwhile, EpiSNP attained the best performance for recessive interactions (67%). All methods except BOOST produced F1 scores below 0.05 for most interaction types. We further evaluated the methods using a real-world dataset. When applied to the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development dataset to analyse the externalizing behavior phenotype, both PLINK Epistasis and PLINK BOOST identified SNPs within the DRD2 and DRD4 genes, consistent with previously reported genetic associations. Given the variability in tool performance across interaction types, no single method provides optimal detection across all scenarios. Leveraging multiple detection algorithms may therefore yield more comprehensive insights into epistatic effects in quantitative trait analyses. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All relevant code and simulated datasets can be found at github.com/staslist/Epistasis_Review repository.
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.