ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2020
A Unifying Framework for Imputing Summary Statistics in Genome-Wide Association Studies.
Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Fine-mapping a genome-wide meta-analysis of 98,374 migraine cases identifies 181 sets of candidate causal variants.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
- FINEMAP-miss: fine-mapping genome-wide association studies with missing genotype information.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- CADET: Enhanced transcriptome-wide association analyses in admixed samples using eQTL summary data.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Animal-SNPAtlas: a comprehensive SNP database for multiple animals.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Plant-ImputeDB: an integrated multiple plant reference panel database for genotype imputation.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
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
Methods to impute missing data are routinely used to increase power in genome-wide association studies. There are two broad classes of imputation methods. The first class imputes genotypes at the untyped variants, given those at the typed variants, and then performs a statistical test of association at the imputed variants. The second class, summary statistic imputation (SSI), directly imputes association statistics at the untyped variants, given the association statistics observed at the typed variants. The second class is appealing as it tends to be computationally efficient while only requiring the summary statistics from a study, while the former class requires access to individual-level data that can be difficult to obtain. The statistical properties of these two classes of imputation methods have not been fully understood. In this study, we show that the two classes of imputation methods yield association statistics with similar distributions for sufficiently large sample sizes. Using this relationship, we can understand the effect of the imputation method on power. We show that a commonly used approach to SSI that we term SSI with variance reweighting generally leads to a loss in power. On the contrary, our proposed method for SSI that does not perform variance reweighting fully accounts for imputation uncertainty, while achieving better power.
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.