Article

Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS): Explanation and elaboration

Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
European journal of human genetics: EJHG (Impact Factor: 4.35). 03/2011; 19(5):18 p preceding 494. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.27
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fueling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by previous reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Peter Kraft
  • Source
    • "We report on the Software Ontology (SWO) [1,2], an ontology for describing the software used within computational biology, which includes bioinformatics resources and any software tools used in the preparation and maintenance of data. Development of the SWO is motivated by the growing interest in the recording and reproducibility of biomedical investigations [3,4]. Reproducibility is as important for computational investigations of data as it is for investigations in the ‘wet’ laboratory [5,6]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biomedical ontologists to date have concentrated on ontological descriptions of biomedical entities such as gene products and their attributes, phenotypes and so on. Recently, effort has diversified to descriptions of the laboratory investigations by which these entities were produced. However, much biological insight is gained from the analysis of the data produced from these investigations, and there is a lack of adequate descriptions of the wide range of software that are central to bioinformatics. We need to describe how data are analyzed for discovery, audit trails, provenance and reproducibility. The Software Ontology (SWO) is a description of software used to store, manage and analyze data. Input to the SWO has come from beyond the life sciences, but its main focus is the life sciences. We used agile techniques to gather input for the SWO and keep engagement with our users. The result is an ontology that meets the needs of a broad range of users by describing software, its information processing tasks, data inputs and outputs, data formats versions and so on. Recently, the SWO has incorporated EDAM, a vocabulary for describing data and related concepts in bioinformatics. The SWO is currently being used to describe software used in multiple biomedical applications. The SWO is another element of the biomedical ontology landscape that is necessary for the description of biomedical entities and how they were discovered. An ontology of software used to analyze data produced by investigations in the life sciences can be made in such a way that it covers the important features requested and prioritized by its users. The SWO thus fits into the landscape of biomedical ontologies and is produced using techniques designed to keep it in line with user’s needs. The Software Ontology is available under an Apache 2.0 license at http://theswo.sourceforge.net/; the Software Ontology blog can be read at http://softwareontology.wordpress.com.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2014 · Journal of Biomedical Semantics
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rapid identification of genetic markers for multifactorial diseases from genome-wide association studies is fuelling interest in investigating the predictive ability and health care utility of genetic risk models. Various measures are available for the assessment of risk prediction models, each addressing a different aspect of performance and utility. We developed PredictABEL, a package in R that covers descriptive tables, measures and figures that are used in the analysis of risk prediction studies such as measures of model fit, predictive ability and clinical utility, and risk distributions, calibration plot and the receiver operating characteristic plot. Tables and figures are saved as separate files in a user-specified format, which include publication-quality EPS and TIFF formats. All figures are available in a ready-made layout, but they can be customized to the preferences of the user. The package has been developed for the analysis of genetic risk prediction studies, but can also be used for studies that only include non-genetic risk factors. PredictABEL is freely available at the websites of GenABEL ( http://www.genabel.org ) and CRAN ( http://cran.r-project.org/).
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2011 · European Journal of Epidemiology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: • The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. • The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but the quality and completeness of reporting vary. • A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. • These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency of study reporting and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis. • A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published as an accompanying article [1].
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2011 · European Journal of Clinical Investigation
Show more