Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34368847›Full record

SynthesisHuman molecular genetics2021

False positive findings during genome-wide association studies with imputation: influence of allele frequency and imputation accuracy.

Zhihui Zhang, Xiangjun Xiao, Wen Zhou, Dakai Zhu, Christopher I Amos

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhihui ZhangDan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Xiangjun XiaoDan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Wen ZhouDan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Dakai ZhuDan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Christopher I AmosDan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

Translating Molecular and Clinical Data to Population Lung Cancer Risk AssessmentU19CA203654 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI Christopher I. Amos, Rayjean J. Hung · 2017 to 2026
$23.7M
Precision approaches to refining TP53-associated cancer riskR01CA242218 · NCI · BECKMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE/CITY OF HOPE · PI AMOS, CHRISTOPHER I., GARBER, JUDY E. · 2019 to 2023
$8.5M
Genetic analysis of lung cancer susceptibilityR03CA256222 · NCI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI AMOS, CHRISTOPHER I. · 2021 to 2022
$160k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA242218NCI NIH HHS R03 CA256222NCI NIH HHS U19 CA203654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genotype imputation is widely used in genetic studies to boost the power of GWAS, to combine multiple studies for meta-analysis and to perform fine mapping. With advances of imputation tools and large reference panels, genotype imputation has become mature and accurate. However, the uncertain nature of imputed genotypes can cause bias in the downstream analysis. Many studies have compared the performance of popular imputation approaches, but few investigated bias characteristics of downstream association analyses. Herein, we showed that the imputation accuracy is diminished if the real genotypes contain minor alleles. Although these genotypes are less common, which is particularly true for loci with low minor allele frequency, a large discordance between imputed and observed genotypes significantly inflated the association results, especially in data with a large portion of uncertain SNPs. The significant discordance of P-values happened as the P-value approached 0 or the imputation quality was poor. Although elimination of poorly imputed SNPs can remove false positive (FP) SNPs, it sacrificed, sometimes, more than 80% true positive (TP) SNPs. For top ranked SNPs, removing variants with moderate imputation quality cannot reduce the proportion of FP SNPs, and increasing sample size in reference panels did not greatly benefit the results as well. Additionally, samples with a balanced ratio between cases and controls can dramatically improve the number of TP SNPs observed in the imputation based GWAS. These results raise concerns about results from analysis of association studies when rare variants are studied, particularly when case-control studies are unbalanced.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAllelesGene FrequencyGenotype

Identifiers

PMID34368847
PMCPMC8682785
OpenAlexW3190133082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.