Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29940862›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

A correction for sample overlap in genome-wide association studies in a polygenic pleiotropy-informed framework.

Marissa LeBlanc, Verena Zuber, Wesley K Thompson, Ole A Andreassen, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Working Groups of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Arnoldo Frigessi, Bettina Kulle Andreassen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Addressing overfitting bias due to sample overlap in polygenic risk scoring.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

7 authors.

Marissa LeBlancOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo universitetssykehus HF, Sogn Arena, PB 4950 Nydalen, Oslo, 0424, Norway. marissa.leblanc@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2148-2814
Verena ZuberMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.
Wesley K ThompsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0603, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0603, USA.
Ole A AndreassenNORMENT-KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1039 Blindern, Oslo, N-0315, Norway.
Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Working Groups of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium
Arnoldo FrigessiOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo universitetssykehus HF, Sogn Arena, PB 4950 Nydalen, Oslo, 0424, Norway.
Bettina Kulle AndreassenDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, P.O. box 5313 Majorstuen, Oslo, N-0304, Norway.

Funding

3/7 Psychiatric Genomics Consortium: Finding actionable variationU01MH109536 · NIMH · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI CHARNEY, ALEXANDER W, HUCKINS, LAURA MARIANNE · 2016 to 2020
$2.7M
Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/7NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH109536Wellcome Trust 204623/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is considerable evidence that many complex traits have a partially shared genetic basis, termed pleiotropy. It is therefore useful to consider integrating genome-wide association study (GWAS) data across several traits, usually at the summary statistic level. A major practical challenge arises when these GWAS have overlapping subjects. This is particularly an issue when estimating pleiotropy using methods that condition the significance of one trait on the signficance of a second, such as the covariate-modulated false discovery rate (cmfdr).

resultsWe propose a method for correcting for sample overlap at the summary statistic level. We quantify the expected amount of spurious correlation between the summary statistics from two GWAS due to sample overlap, and use this estimated correlation in a simple linear correction that adjusts the joint distribution of test statistics from the two GWAS. The correction is appropriate for GWAS with case-control or quantitative outcomes. Our simulations and data example show that without correcting for sample overlap, the cmfdr is not properly controlled, leading to an excessive number of false discoveries and an excessive false discovery proportion. Our correction for sample overlap is effective in that it restores proper control of the false discovery rate, at very little loss in power.

conclusionsWith our proposed correction, it is possible to integrate GWAS summary statistics with overlapping samples in a statistical framework that is dependent on the joint distribution of the two GWAS.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesComputer SimulationGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideCovariate-modulated false discovery rateCross-phenotype associationData integrationMeta-analysis with shared subjects

Identifiers

PMID29940862
PMCPMC6019513

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.