ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2018
Proper joint analysis of summary association statistics requires the adjustment of heterogeneity in SNP coverage pattern.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Genetic insights into resting heart rate and its role in cardiovascular disease.Nature communications · 2023Pooled it
- Genomic structural equation modeling elucidates the genetic mechanisms underlying allostatic load.Comprehensive psychoneuroendocrinology · 2026Article
- Integrative analysis of individual-level data and high-dimensional summary statistics.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As meta-analysis results published by consortia of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) become increasingly available, many association summary statistics-based multi-locus tests have been developed to jointly evaluate multiple single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to reveal novel genetic architectures of various complex traits. The validity of these approaches relies on the accurate estimate of z-score correlations at considered SNPs, which in turn requires knowledge on the set of SNPs assessed by each study participating in the meta-analysis. However, this exact SNP coverage information is usually unavailable from the meta-analysis results published by GWAS consortia. In the absence of the coverage information, researchers typically estimate the z-score correlations by making oversimplified coverage assumptions. We show through real studies that such a practice can generate highly inflated type I errors, and we demonstrate the proper way to incorporate correct coverage information into multi-locus analyses. We advocate that consortia should make SNP coverage information available when posting their meta-analysis results, and that investigators who develop analytic tools for joint analyses based on summary data should pay attention to the variation in SNP coverage and adjust for it appropriately.
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.