4.7 Article

Accelerated estimation and permutation inference for ACE modeling

Journal

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
Volume 40, Issue 12, Pages 3488-3507

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.24611

Keywords

ACE model; heritability inference; permutation test; twin studies

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [A7960034, A79801419, A79906588, DP0212016]
  2. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [RO1 HD050735]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council [496682]
  4. National Institutes of Health [K99AG054573]
  5. Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen [12724]
  6. Australian Research Council [DP0212016] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are a wealth of tools for fitting linear models at each location in the brain in neuroimaging analysis, and a wealth of genetic tools for estimating heritability for a small number of phenotypes. But there remains a need for computationally efficient neuroimaging genetic tools that can conduct analyses at the brain-wide scale. Here we present a simple method for heritability estimation on twins that replaces a variance component model-which requires iterative optimisation-with a (noniterative) linear regression model, by transforming data to squared twin-pair differences. We demonstrate that the method has comparable bias, mean squared error, false positive risk, and power to best practice maximum-likelihood-based methods, while requiring a small fraction of the computation time. Combined with permutation, we call this approach Accelerated Permutation Inference for the ACE Model (APACE) where ACE refers to the additive genetic (A) effects, and common (C), and unique (E) environmental influences on the trait. We show how the use of spatial statistics like cluster size can dramatically improve power, and illustrate the method on a heritability analysis of an fMRI working memory dataset.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available