评估遗传风险评分对二分类结果的预测。

International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics Pub Date : 2015-09-09 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01
Wonsuk Yoo, Selina A Smith, Steven S Coughlin
{"title":"评估遗传风险评分对二分类结果的预测。","authors":"Wonsuk Yoo,&nbsp;Selina A Smith,&nbsp;Steven S Coughlin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Substantial uncertainty exists as to whether combining multiple disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) into a genotype risk score (GRS) can improve the ability to predict the risk of disease in a clinically relevant way. We calculated the ability of a simple count GRS to predict the risk of a dichotomous outcome under both multiplicative and additive models of combined effects. We then compared the results of these simulations with the observed results of published GRS measured within multiple epidemiologic cohorts. If the combined effect of each disease-associated SNP included in a GRS is multiplicative on the risk scale, then a count GRS score should be useful for risk prediction with as few as 10-20 SNPs. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model dramatically improves risk prediction. By contrast, if the combined effect of each SNP included in a GRS is linearly additive on the risk scale, a simple count GRS is unlikely to provide clinically useful risk prediction. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model does not improve risk prediction. The combined effect of SNPs included in several published GRS measured in several well-phenotyped epidemiologic cohort studies appears to be more consistent with a linearly additive effect. A simple count GRS is unlikely to be clinically useful for predicting the risk of a dichotomous outcome. Alternative methods for constructing GRS that attempt to identify and include SNPs that demonstrate multiplicative gene-gene or gene-environment interactive effects are needed. </p>","PeriodicalId":73460,"journal":{"name":"International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics","volume":"6 1","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572087/pdf/ijmeg0006-0001.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of genetic risk scores for prediction of dichotomous outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Wonsuk Yoo,&nbsp;Selina A Smith,&nbsp;Steven S Coughlin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Substantial uncertainty exists as to whether combining multiple disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) into a genotype risk score (GRS) can improve the ability to predict the risk of disease in a clinically relevant way. We calculated the ability of a simple count GRS to predict the risk of a dichotomous outcome under both multiplicative and additive models of combined effects. We then compared the results of these simulations with the observed results of published GRS measured within multiple epidemiologic cohorts. If the combined effect of each disease-associated SNP included in a GRS is multiplicative on the risk scale, then a count GRS score should be useful for risk prediction with as few as 10-20 SNPs. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model dramatically improves risk prediction. By contrast, if the combined effect of each SNP included in a GRS is linearly additive on the risk scale, a simple count GRS is unlikely to provide clinically useful risk prediction. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model does not improve risk prediction. The combined effect of SNPs included in several published GRS measured in several well-phenotyped epidemiologic cohort studies appears to be more consistent with a linearly additive effect. A simple count GRS is unlikely to be clinically useful for predicting the risk of a dichotomous outcome. Alternative methods for constructing GRS that attempt to identify and include SNPs that demonstrate multiplicative gene-gene or gene-environment interactive effects are needed. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572087/pdf/ijmeg0006-0001.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将多种疾病相关的单核苷酸多态性(snp)组合成基因型风险评分(GRS)是否能以临床相关的方式提高预测疾病风险的能力,存在很大的不确定性。我们计算了简单计数GRS在组合效应的乘法和加性模型下预测二分类结果风险的能力。然后,我们将这些模拟结果与在多个流行病学队列中测量的已发表的GRS观察结果进行了比较。如果GRS中包含的每个疾病相关SNP的综合效应在风险量表上是相乘的,那么计数GRS评分应该对只有10-20个SNP的风险预测有用。在该模型下,向GRS中添加额外的snp显著提高了风险预测。相比之下,如果GRS中包含的每个SNP的综合效应在风险量表上是线性相加的,那么简单的GRS计数不太可能提供临床有用的风险预测。在该模型下,向GRS中添加额外的snp并不能改善风险预测。在几个表型良好的流行病学队列研究中测量的几个已发表的GRS中包含的snp的综合效应似乎更符合线性加性效应。简单的GRS计数在临床上不太可能用于预测二分类结果的风险。构建GRS的替代方法是需要的,这些方法试图识别和包括证明增殖基因-基因或基因-环境相互作用的snp。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of genetic risk scores for prediction of dichotomous outcomes.

Substantial uncertainty exists as to whether combining multiple disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) into a genotype risk score (GRS) can improve the ability to predict the risk of disease in a clinically relevant way. We calculated the ability of a simple count GRS to predict the risk of a dichotomous outcome under both multiplicative and additive models of combined effects. We then compared the results of these simulations with the observed results of published GRS measured within multiple epidemiologic cohorts. If the combined effect of each disease-associated SNP included in a GRS is multiplicative on the risk scale, then a count GRS score should be useful for risk prediction with as few as 10-20 SNPs. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model dramatically improves risk prediction. By contrast, if the combined effect of each SNP included in a GRS is linearly additive on the risk scale, a simple count GRS is unlikely to provide clinically useful risk prediction. Adding additional SNPs to the GRS under this model does not improve risk prediction. The combined effect of SNPs included in several published GRS measured in several well-phenotyped epidemiologic cohort studies appears to be more consistent with a linearly additive effect. A simple count GRS is unlikely to be clinically useful for predicting the risk of a dichotomous outcome. Alternative methods for constructing GRS that attempt to identify and include SNPs that demonstrate multiplicative gene-gene or gene-environment interactive effects are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the effects of homocysteine metabolism in osteoporosis management in Indian adult females. P. falciparum genetic markers associated with drug resistance from patients with treatment failure in the Southern part of Senegal in 2017. Abundance and diversity of methicillin-resistant bacteria from bathroom surfaces at workplaces using CHROMagar media, 16S, and dnaJ gene sequence typing. Analysis of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii carbapenemase gene distribution and biofilm formation. Facial and ocular manifestations of male patients affected by the HUWE1-related intellectual developmental disorder.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1