Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Gauri Renjith

dblp:439/0485 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › genomics › genome-wide association study
epistasis detection
1.012026
Evaluation of epistasis detection methods for quantitative phenotypes · Bioinform. 2026
Bioinformatics and computational biology
statistical genetics
1.012026
Evaluation of epistasis detection methods for quantitative phenotypes · Bioinform. 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

f1 score · 1.0EpiGEN simulator · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Evaluation of epistasis detection methods for quantitative phenotypes
abstract
MOTIVATION: Epistasis, or genetic interaction, plays a crucial role in shaping complex traits and has been increasingly recognized for its widespread influence in genetic architectures. While epistasis detection has been extensively evaluated in case-control studies, its performance with quantitative phenotypes remains comparatively understudied. RESULTS: We identified and evaluated six epistasis detection methods applicable to quantitative trait analysis: EpiSNP, Matrix Epistasis, MIDESP, PLINK Epistasis, QMDR, and REMMA. Using the EpiGEN simulator, we generated synthetic datasets modeling four classes of pairwise SNP interactions-dominant, multiplicative, recessive, and XOR. We also assessed BOOST and MDR algorithms using discretized (case-control) versions of the same datasets. Performance varied notably by interaction type: REMMA achieved the highest overall detection rate (55%), particularly excelling with dominant interactions (100%). MDR excelled with multiplicative (57%) and XOR (69%) interactions. Meanwhile, EpiSNP attained the best performance for recessive interactions (67%). All methods except BOOST produced F1 scores below 0.05 for most interaction types. We further evaluated the methods using a real-world dataset. When applied to the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development dataset to analyse the externalizing behavior phenotype, both PLINK Epistasis and PLINK BOOST identified SNPs within the DRD2 and DRD4 genes, consistent with previously reported genetic associations. Given the variability in tool performance across interaction types, no single method provides optimal detection across all scenarios. Leveraging multiple detection algorithms may therefore yield more comprehensive insights into epistatic effects in quantitative trait analyses. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All relevant code and simulated datasets can be found at github.com/staslist/Epistasis_Review repository.
Stanislav Listopad, Gauri Renjith
Bioinform.2