Literature DB >> 22643180

Analytical and simulation methods for estimating the potential predictive ability of genetic profiling: a comparison of methods and results.

Suman Kundu1, Lennart C Karssen, A Cecile J W Janssens.   

Abstract

Various modeling methods have been proposed to estimate the potential predictive ability of polygenic risk variants that predispose to various common diseases. However, it is unknown whether differences between them affect their conclusions on predictive ability. We reviewed input parameters, assumptions and output of the five most common methods and compared their estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) using hypothetical data representing effect sizes and frequencies of genetic variants, population disease risk and number of variants. To assess the accuracy of the estimated AUCs, we aimed to reproduce the AUCs of published empirical studies. All methods assumed that the combined effect of genetic variants on disease risk followed a multiplicative risk model of independent genetic effects, but they either assumed per allele, per genotype or dominant/recessive effects for the genetic variants. Modeling strategy and input parameters differed. Methods used simulation analysis or analytical formulas with effect sizes quantified by odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks. Estimated AUC values were similar for lower ORs (<1.2). When AUCs were larger (>0.7) due to variants with strong effects, differences in estimated AUCs between methods increased. The simulation methods accurately reproduced the AUC values of empirical studies, but the analytical methods did not. We conclude that despite differences in input parameters, the modeling methods estimate similar AUC for realistic values of the ORs. When one or more variants have stronger effects and AUC values are higher, the simulation methods tend to be more accurate.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22643180      PMCID: PMC3499740          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.89

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  22 in total

1.  Combined effects of 17 common genetic variants on type 2 diabetes risk in a Han Chinese population.

Authors:  Q Qi; H Li; Y Wu; C Liu; H Wu; Z Yu; L Qi; F B Hu; R J F Loos; X Lin
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 10.122

2.  Using the optimal receiver operating characteristic curve to design a predictive genetic test, exemplified with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Qing Lu; Robert C Elston
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 3.  Genome-based prediction of common diseases: advances and prospects.

Authors:  A Cecile J W Janssens; Cornelia M van Duijn
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 6.150

4.  Evaluation of the discriminative accuracy of genomic profiling in the prediction of common complex diseases.

Authors:  Ramal Moonesinghe; Tiebin Liu; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the US population.

Authors:  Ronald Klein; Chiu-Fang Chou; Barbara E K Klein; Xinzhi Zhang; Stacy M Meuer; Jinan B Saaddine
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-01

6.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Prediction model for prevalence and incidence of advanced age-related macular degeneration based on genetic, demographic, and environmental variables.

Authors:  Johanna M Seddon; Robyn Reynolds; Julian Maller; Jesen A Fagerness; Mark J Daly; Bernard Rosner
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2008-12-30       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  The potential of genes and other markers to inform about risk.

Authors:  Margaret S Pepe; Jessie W Gu; Daryl E Morris
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Assessment of clinical validity of a breast cancer risk model combining genetic and clinical information.

Authors:  Matthew E Mealiffe; Renee P Stokowski; Brian K Rhees; Ross L Prentice; Mary Pettinger; David A Hinds
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  PPARG, KCNJ11, CDKAL1, CDKN2A-CDKN2B, IDE-KIF11-HHEX, IGF2BP2 and SLC30A8 are associated with type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population.

Authors:  Cheng Hu; Rong Zhang; Congrong Wang; Jie Wang; Xiaojing Ma; Jingyi Lu; Wen Qin; Xuhong Hou; Chen Wang; Yuqian Bao; Kunsan Xiang; Weiping Jia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  Genetic tests obtainable through pharmacies: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Authors:  George P Patrinos; Darrol J Baker; Fahd Al-Mulla; Vasilis Vasiliou; David N Cooper
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 4.639

2.  Estimating the predictive ability of genetic risk models in simulated data based on published results from genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Suman Kundu; Raluca Mihaescu; Catherina M C Meijer; Rachel Bakker; A Cecile J W Janssens
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 4.599

3.  Variations in predicted risks in personal genome testing for common complex diseases.

Authors:  Rachel R J Kalf; Raluca Mihaescu; Suman Kundu; Peter de Knijff; Robert C Green; A Cecile J W Janssens
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Constructing Hypothetical Risk Data from the Area under the ROC Curve: Modelling Distributions of Polygenic Risk.

Authors:  Suman Kundu; Jannigje G Kers; A Cecile J W Janssens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.