Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29494641›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Statistical power and utility of meta-analysis methods for cross-phenotype genome-wide association studies.

Zhaozhong Zhu, Verneri Anttila, Jordan W Smoller, Phil H Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhaozhong ZhuCenter for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5662-1541
Verneri AnttilaStanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0073-4675
Jordan W SmollerCenter for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0381-6334
Phil H LeeCenter for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1770-3100
Broad Institute · USHarvard University · US

Funding

International Cohort Collection for Bipolar DisorderR01MH085542 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SMOLLER, JORDAN W · 2008 to 2012
$10.7M
Research and Mentoring on Integrating Psychiatric Genetics and NeuroscienceK24MH094614 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SMOLLER, JORDAN W · 2012 to 2016
$925k
Neuroimaging genetics to study social cognitive deficits in ASD and schizophreniaR00MH101367 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI LEE, PHIL H. · 2017 to 2019
$747k
NIH HHS K24MH094614NIH HHS R00MH101367NIH HHS R01MH085542NIH HHS R01MH085545NIMH NIH HHS K24 MH094614NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH101367NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH085542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in recent genome wide association studies (GWAS) suggest that pleiotropic effects on human complex traits are widespread. A number of classic and recent meta-analysis methods have been used to identify genetic loci with pleiotropic effects, but the overall performance of these methods is not well understood. In this work, we use extensive simulations and case studies of GWAS datasets to investigate the power and type-I error rates of ten meta-analysis methods. We specifically focus on three conditions commonly encountered in the studies of multiple traits: (1) extensive heterogeneity of genetic effects; (2) characterization of trait-specific association; and (3) inflated correlation of GWAS due to overlapping samples. Although the statistical power is highly variable under distinct study conditions, we found the superior power of several methods under diverse heterogeneity. In particular, classic fixed-effects model showed surprisingly good performance when a variant is associated with more than a half of study traits. As the number of traits with null effects increases, ASSET performed the best along with competitive specificity and sensitivity. With opposite directional effects, CPASSOC featured the first-rate power. However, caution is advised when using CPASSOC for studying genetically correlated traits with overlapping samples. We conclude with a discussion of unresolved issues and directions for future research.

Indexed as

Genetic HeterogeneityGenetic LociGenetic PleiotropyGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID29494641
PMCPMC5832233
OpenAlexW2793560365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.