Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20074509›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of human genetics2010

Prioritizing GWAS results: A review of statistical methods and recommendations for their application.

Rita M Cantor, Kenneth Lange, Janet S Sinsheimer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of human genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 334 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
334citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

334 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. PROVGEN: A Privacy-Preserving Approach for Outcome Validation in Genomic Research.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Challenges and opportunities for omics-based precision medicine in chronic low back pain.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Review

274 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rita M CantorDepartment of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. rcantor@mednet.ucla.edu
Kenneth Lange
Janet S Sinsheimer

Funding

Systems genomics of metabolic syndrome traitsP01HL028481 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LUSIS, ALDONS JAKE · 1985 to 2019
$50.2M
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR GENE MAPPINGR01GM053275 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LANGE, KENNETH L · 1995 to 2019
$9.3M
Quantitative Trait Locus Mapping in Human PedigreesR37MH059490 · NIMH · TEXAS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BLANGERO, JOHN · 2001 to 2010
$6.8M
QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS MAPPING IN HUMAN PEDIGREESR01MH059490 · NIMH · SOUTHWEST FOUNDATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RES · PI BLANGERO, JOHN · 1998 to 2000
$426k
NHLBI NIH HHS HL28481NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL028481NIGMS NIH HHS GM53275NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM053275NIMH NIH HHS MH59490NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH059490NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH059490
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have rapidly become a standard method for disease gene discovery. A substantial number of recent GWAS indicate that for most disorders, only a few common variants are implicated and the associated SNPs explain only a small fraction of the genetic risk. This review is written from the viewpoint that findings from the GWAS provide preliminary genetic information that is available for additional analysis by statistical procedures that accumulate evidence, and that these secondary analyses are very likely to provide valuable information that will help prioritize the strongest constellations of results. We review and discuss three analytic methods to combine preliminary GWAS statistics to identify genes, alleles, and pathways for deeper investigations. Meta-analysis seeks to pool information from multiple GWAS to increase the chances of finding true positives among the false positives and provides a way to combine associations across GWAS, even when the original data are unavailable. Testing for epistasis within a single GWAS study can identify the stronger results that are revealed when genes interact. Pathway analysis of GWAS results is used to prioritize genes and pathways within a biological context. Following a GWAS, association results can be assigned to pathways and tested in aggregate with computational tools and pathway databases. Reviews of published methods with recommendations for their application are provided within the framework for each approach.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsBayes TheoremDatabases, GeneticEpistasis, GeneticGeneticsGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalMutationPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID20074509
PMCPMC2801749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.