↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of dimension reduction-based logistic regression models forcase-control genome-wide association study: principal components analysis vs. partial least squares

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of dimension reduction-based logistic regression models forcase-control genome-wide association study: principal components analysis vs. partial least squares
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Research, April 2015
DOI 10.7555/jbr.29.20140043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Honggang Yi, Hongmei Wo, Yang Zhao, Ruyang Zhang, Junchen Dai, Guangfu Jin, Hongxia Ma, Tangchun Wu, Zhibin Hu, Dongxin Lin, Hongbing Shen, Feng Chen

Abstract

With recent advances in biotechnology, genome-wide association study (GWAS) has been widely used to identify genetic variants that underlie human complex diseases and traits. In case-control GWAS, typical statistical strategy is traditional logistical regression (LR) based on single-locus analysis. However, such a single-locus analysis leads to the well-known multiplicity problem, with a risk of inflating type I error and reducing power. Dimension reduction-based techniques, such as principal component-based logistic regression (PC-LR), partial least squares-based logistic regression (PLS-LR), have recently gained much attention in the analysis of high dimensional genomic data. However, the performance of these methods is still not clear, especially in GWAS. We conducted simulations and real data application to compare the type I error and power of PC-LR, PLS-LR and LR applicable to GWAS within a defined single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) set region. We found that PC-LR and PLS can reasonably control type I error under null hypothesis. On contrast, LR, which is corrected by Bonferroni method, was more conserved in all simulation settings. In particular, we found that PC-LR and PLS-LR had comparable power and they both outperformed LR, especially when the causal SNP was in high linkage disequilibrium with genotyped ones and with a small effective size in simulation. Based on SNP set analysis, we applied all three methods to analyze non-small cell lung cancer GWAS data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 35%
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 12%
Engineering 2 12%
Computer Science 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Research
#124
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,275
of 279,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Research
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.