Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34580220›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

False discovery rate control in genome-wide association studies with population structure.

Matteo Sesia, Stephen Bates, Emmanuel Candès, Jonathan Marchini, Chiara Sabatti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Catch me if you can: signal localization with knockoffJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Matteo SesiaDepartment of Data Sciences and Operations, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089; candes@stanford.edu sesia@marshall.usc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9046-907X
Stephen BatesDepartment of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Emmanuel CandèsDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; candes@stanford.edu sesia@marshall.usc.edu.
Jonathan MarchiniGenetics Center, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY 10591.
Chiara SabattiDepartment of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.

Funding

The pursuit of genetic causal mechanismsR56HG010812 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SABATTI, CHIARA · 2021 to 2022
$875k
Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853NHGRI NIH HHS R56 HG010812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a comprehensive statistical framework to analyze data from genome-wide association studies of polygenic traits, producing interpretable findings while controlling the false discovery rate. In contrast with standard approaches, our method can leverage sophisticated multivariate algorithms but makes no parametric assumptions about the unknown relation between genotypes and phenotype. Instead, we recognize that genotypes can be considered as a random sample from an appropriate model, encapsulating our knowledge of genetic inheritance and human populations. This allows the generation of imperfect copies (knockoffs) of these variables that serve as ideal negative controls, correcting for linkage disequilibrium and accounting for unknown population structure, which may be due to diverse ancestries or familial relatedness. The validity and effectiveness of our method are demonstrated by extensive simulations and by applications to the UK Biobank data. These analyses confirm our method is powerful relative to state-of-the-art alternatives, while comparisons with other studies validate most of our discoveries. Finally, fast software is made available for researchers to analyze Biobank-scale datasets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenome, HumanGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHumansLinkage DisequilibriumMultifactorial InheritancePhenotypeSoftwarefalse discovery rategenome-wide association studieshidden Markov modelsknockoffspopulation structure

Identifiers

PMID34580220
PMCPMC8501795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.