ArticleHuman molecular genetics2021
Comparison of adaptive multiple phenotype association tests using summary statistics in genome-wide association studies.
Article in Human molecular genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bivariate genome-wide association study of circulating fibrinogen and C-reactive protein levels.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2024Article
- The goldmine of GWAS summary statistics: a systematic review of methods and tools.BioData mining · 2024Article
- Multi-phenotype analyses of hemostatic traits with cardiovascular events reveal novel genetic associations.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2022Article
- Ancestry-specific associations identified in genome-wide combined-phenotype study of red blood cell traits emphasize benefits of diversity in genomics.BMC genomics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies have been successful mapping loci for individual phenotypes, but few studies have comprehensively interrogated evidence of shared genetic effects across multiple phenotypes simultaneously. Statistical methods have been proposed for analyzing multiple phenotypes using summary statistics, which enables studies of shared genetic effects while avoiding challenges associated with individual-level data sharing. Adaptive tests have been developed to maintain power against multiple alternative hypotheses because the most powerful single-alternative test depends on the underlying structure of the associations between the multiple phenotypes and a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Here we compare the performance of six such adaptive tests: two adaptive sum of powered scores (aSPU) tests, the unified score association test (metaUSAT), the adaptive test in a mixed-models framework (mixAda) and two principal-component-based adaptive tests (PCAQ and PCO). Our simulations highlight practical challenges that arise when multivariate distributions of phenotypes do not satisfy assumptions of multivariate normality. Previous reports in this context focus on low minor allele count (MAC) and omit the aSPU test, which relies less than other methods on asymptotic and distributional assumptions. When these assumptions are not satisfied, particularly when MAC is low and/or phenotype covariance matrices are singular or nearly singular, aSPU better preserves type I error, sometimes at the cost of decreased power. We illustrate this trade-off with multiple phenotype analyses of six quantitative electrocardiogram traits in the Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) study.
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.