SynthesisGenetic epidemiology2016
JAM: A Scalable Bayesian Framework for Joint Analysis of Marginal SNP Effects.
Synthesis in Genetic epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- KidneyGenAfrica multi-cohort Genome-wide association study and polygenic prediction of kidney function in 110,000 Africans.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Fine-mapping a genome-wide meta-analysis of 98,374 migraine cases identifies 181 sets of candidate causal variants.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- Multi-trait discovery and fine-mapping of lipid loci in 125,000 individuals of African ancestry.Nature communications · 2023Pooled it
- CARMA is a new Bayesian model for fine-mapping in genome-wide association meta-analyses.Nature genetics · 2023Pooled it
- Metabolic Signatures of Youth Exposure to Mixtures of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: A Multi-Cohort Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Pooled it
- Genetic Influences on Patient-Oriented Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review of Non-Apolipoprotein E Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms.Journal of neurotrauma · 2021Pooled it
- Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction.Nature genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Fine-mapping of prostate cancer susceptibility loci in a large meta-analysis identifies candidate causal variants.Nature communications · 2018Pooled it
- Towards improved fine-mapping of candidate causal variants.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025Review
- Investigating the role of neighborhood socioeconomic status and germline genetics on prostate cancer risk.HGG advances · 2025Article
- Genome-wide iterative fine-mapping for non-Gaussian phenotypes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Improved genetic discovery and fine-mapping resolution through multivariate latent factor analysis of high-dimensional traits.Cell genomics · 2025Article
- A multivariable cis-Mendelian randomization method robust to weak instrument bias and horizontal pleiotropy bias.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Refining fine-mapping: Effect sizes and regional heritability.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- HORNET: tools to find genes with causal evidence and their regulatory networks using eQTLs.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Fine-Mapping the Results From Genome-Wide Association Studies of Primary Biliary Cholangitis Using SuSiE and h2-D2.Genetic epidemiology · 2025Article
- Hierarchical joint analysis of marginal summary statistics-Part II: High-dimensional instrumental analysis of omics data.Genetic epidemiology · 2024Article
- The goldmine of GWAS summary statistics: a systematic review of methods and tools.BioData mining · 2024Article
- Hierarchical joint analysis of marginal summary statistics-Part I: Multipopulation fine mapping and credible set construction.Genetic epidemiology · 2024Article
- simmrd: An open-source tool to perform simulations in Mendelian randomization.Genetic epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, large scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses have boosted the number of known signals for some traits into the tens and hundreds. Typically, however, variants are only analysed one-at-a-time. This complicates the ability of fine-mapping to identify a small set of SNPs for further functional follow-up. We describe a new and scalable algorithm, joint analysis of marginal summary statistics (JAM), for the re-analysis of published marginal summary statistics under joint multi-SNP models. The correlation is accounted for according to estimates from a reference dataset, and models and SNPs that best explain the complete joint pattern of marginal effects are highlighted via an integrated Bayesian penalized regression framework. We provide both enumerated and Reversible Jump MCMC implementations of JAM and present some comparisons of performance. In a series of realistic simulation studies, JAM demonstrated identical performance to various alternatives designed for single region settings. In multi-region settings, where the only multivariate alternative involves stepwise selection, JAM offered greater power and specificity. We also present an application to real published results from MAGIC (meta-analysis of glucose and insulin related traits consortium) - a GWAS meta-analysis of more than 15,000 people. We re-analysed several genomic regions that produced multiple significant signals with glucose levels 2 hr after oral stimulation. Through joint multivariate modelling, JAM was able to formally rule out many SNPs, and for one gene, ADCY5, suggests that an additional SNP, which transpired to be more biologically plausible, should be followed up with equal priority to the reported index.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.