The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests
Open accessAbstract
Background: Genome-wide association studies for complex diseases will produce genotypes on hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A logical first approach to dealing with massive numbers of SNPs is to use some test to screen the SNPs, retaining only those that meet some criterion for futher study. For example, SNPs can be ranked by p-value, and those with the lowest p-values retained. When SNPs have large interaction effects but small marginal effects in a population, they are unlikely to be retained when univariate tests are used for screening. However, model-based screens that pre-specify interactions are impractical for data sets with thousands of SNPs. Random forest analysis is an alternative method that produces a single measure of importance for each predictor variable that takes into account interactions among variables without requiring model specification. Interactions increase the importance for the individual interacting variables, making them more likely to be given high importance relative to other variables. We test the performance of random forests as a screening procedure to identify small numbers of risk-associated SNPs from among large numbers of unassociated SNPs using complex disease models with up to 32 loci, incorporating both genetic heterogeneity and multi-locus interaction. Results: Keeping other factors constant, if risk SNPs interact, the random forest importance measure significantly outperforms the Fisher Exact test as a screening tool. As the number of interacting SNPs increases, the improvement in performance of random forest analysis relative to Fisher Exact test for screening also increases. Random forests perform similarly to the univariate Fisher Exact test as a screening tool when SNPs in the analysis do not interact. Conclusions: In the context of large-scale genetic association studies where unknown interactions exist among true risk-associated SNPs or SNPs and environmental covariates, screening SNPs using random forest analyses can significantly reduce the number of SNPs that need to be retained for further study compared to standard univariate screening methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
Breiman, L. (1996) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00058655 · Cited by 16,325
Variable Selection via Gibbs Sampling
George, E. I., & McCulloch, R. E. (1993) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476353 · Cited by 2,828
The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction
Franklin, J. (2005) · The Mathematical Intelligencer · doi:10.1007/bf02985802 · Cited by 1,400
Sequence Analysis Using Logic Regression
Kooperberg, C., Ruczinski, I., LeBlanc, M. L., & Hsu, L. (2001) · Genetic Epidemiology · doi:10.1002/gepi.2001.21.s1.s626 · Cited by 138
Cited by
From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., & Lee, S.-I. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 · Cited by 10,551
Conditional variable importance for random forests
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Augustin, T., & Zeileis, A. (2008) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 · Cited by 3,254
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Hyperparameters and tuning strategies for random forest
Probst, P., Wright, M. N., & Boulesteix, A. (2019) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1301 · Cited by 1,640
Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases
Cordell, H. J. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2579 · Cited by 1,350
Metadata
- Authors
- Lunetta, K. L., Hayward, L. B., Segal, J., & Van Eerdewegh, P.
- Venue
- BMC Genetics
- Published
- 2004-12-10
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-32
- ISSN
- 1471-2156 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1539593569
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2156-5-32
- The paper
- Lunetta, K. L., Hayward, L. B., Segal, J., & Van Eerdewegh, P. (2004). Screening large-scale association study data: exploiting interactions using random forests. BMC Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-5-32
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.