Dataset Information

Will Big Data Close the Missing Heritability Gap?

ABSTRACT: Despite the important discoveries reported by genome-wide association (GWA) studies, for most traits and diseases the prediction R-squared (R-sq.) achieved with genetic scores remains considerably lower than the trait heritability. Modern biobanks will soon deliver unprecedentedly large biomedical data sets: Will the advent of big data close the gap between the trait heritability and the proportion of variance that can be explained by a genomic predictor? We addressed this question using Bayesian methods and a data analysis approach that produces a surface response relating prediction R-sq. with sample size and model complexity (e.g., number of SNPs). We applied the methodology to data from the interim release of the UK Biobank. Focusing on human height as a model trait and using 80,000 records for model training, we achieved a prediction R-sq. in testing (n = 22,221) of 0.24 (95% C.I.: 0.23-0.25). Our estimates show that prediction R-sq. increases with sample size, reaching an estimated plateau at values that ranged from 0.1 to 0.37 for models using 500 and 50,000 (GWA-selected) SNPs, respectively. Soon much larger data sets will become available. Using the estimated surface response, we forecast that larger sample sizes will lead to further improvements in prediction R-sq. We conclude that big data will lead to a substantial reduction of the gap between trait heritability and the proportion of interindividual differences that can be explained with a genomic predictor. However, even with the power of big data, for complex traits we anticipate that the gap between prediction R-sq. and trait heritability will not be fully closed.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5676235 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Will Big Data Close the Missing Heritability Gap?

Kim Hwasoon H Grueneberg Alexander A Vazquez Ana I AI Hsu Stephen S de Los Campos Gustavo G

Genetics 20170911 3

Despite the important discoveries reported by genome-wide association (GWA) studies, for most traits and diseases the prediction R-squared (R-sq.) achieved with genetic scores remains considerably lower than the trait heritability. Modern biobanks will soon deliver unprecedentedly large biomedical data sets: Will the advent of big data close the gap between the trait heritability and the proportion of variance that can be explained by a genomic predictor? We addressed this question using Bayesia ...[more]

PMID: 28893854

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMissing data is a pervasive problem in clinical research. Generative adversarial imputation nets (GAIN), a novel machine learning data imputation approach, has the potential to substitute missing data accurately and efficiently but has not yet been evaluated in empirical big clinical datasets.ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of GAIN in imputing missing values in large real-world clinical datasets with mixed-type variables. The computation efficiency of GAIN was also evaluated. The performance of GAIN was compared with other commonly used methods, MICE and missForest.MethodsTwo real world clinical datasets were used. The first was that of a cohort study on the long-term outcomes of patients with diabetes (50,000 complete cases), and the second was of a cohort study on the effectiveness of a risk assessment and management programme for patients with hypertension (10,000 complete cases). Missing data (missing at random) to independent variables were simulated at different missingness rates (20, 50%). The normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) between imputed values and real values for continuous variables and the proportion of falsely classified (PFC) for categorical variables were used to measure imputation accuracy. Computation time per imputation for each method was recorded. The differences in accuracy of different imputation methods were compared using ANOVA or non-parametric test.ResultsBoth missForest and GAIN were more accurate than MICE. GAIN showed similar accuracy as missForest when the simulated missingness rate was 20%, but was more accurate when the simulated missingness rate was 50%. GAIN was the most accurate for the imputation of skewed continuous and imbalanced categorical variables at both missingness rates. GAIN had a much higher computation speed (32 min on PC) comparing to that of missForest (1300 min) when the sample size is 50,000.ConclusionGAIN showed better accuracy as an imputation method for missing data in large real-world clinical datasets compared to MICE and missForest, and was more resistant to high missingness rate (50%). The high computation speed is an added advantage of GAIN in big clinical data research. It holds potential as an accurate and efficient method for missing data imputation in future big data clinical research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03299010 ; Unique Protocol ID: HKUCTR-2232.

Dataset Information

Will Big Data Close the Missing Heritability Gap?

Publications

Will Big Data Close the Missing Heritability Gap?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets