4.3 Article

Published genetic variants in retinopathy of prematurity:: Random forest analysis suggests a negligible contribution to risk and severity

期刊

CURRENT EYE RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 5-6, 页码 501-505

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/02713680802018427

关键词

polymorphism; prediction; random forest; ROP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Our recent investigations suggested association between severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and some genetic polymorphisms contributing to angiogenesis. While these findings may help to identify specific elements in ROP pathogenesis, the predictive value of these genetic variants at birth is unknown. We applied a high-dimensional nonparametric method called random forest technique (RFT) to evaluate the predictive value of genetic polymorphisms in ROP at birth. Methods: We used published genetic (i.e., VEGF T-460C, G(+405)C, and C(-2578)A; IGF-I receptor G(+3174)A, angiopoietin II G(-35)C; estrogen receptor PvuII Pp; and endothelial NO-synthase 27-bp b/a and T-786C) and birth data of 134 preterm infants without and 103 preterm infants with ROP requiring laser or cryotherapy. We used RFT to determine the relative importance scores (IS) of each clinical parameter at birth and genetic polymorphisms in the prediction of ROP. The accuracy of ROP prediction at birth was calculated when birth data, genotype data, and birth data PLUS genotype data were taken into account. Results: The most important predictors of ROP were prematurity, low birth weight, intrauterine retardation, and Apgar scores with IS values between 7.46 and 13.20. IS values of genotype data were much lower in the range between 0.86 and 4.19. When birth data solely, genotype data solely, and birth data plus genotype data together were used for prediction, the accuracy of prediction was 0.653, 0.636, and 0.674, respectively. Conclusions: The tested genetic polymorphisms (including those published as significant risk factors of ROP) are not good predictors of ROP at birth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据