Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35278218›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2023

Cross-trait prediction accuracy of summary statistics in genome-wide association studies.

Bingxin Zhao, Fei Zou, Hongtu Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Bingxin ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Fei ZouDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Hongtu ZhuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6781-2690

Funding

Statistical Analysis of Biomedical Imaging Data in Curved SpaceR01MH086633 · NIMH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI IBRAHIM, JOSEPH G · 2010 to 2018
$2.9M
Analysis of Big Data Squared in Biomedical StudiesR01MH116527 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI ZHANG, HEPING · 2018 to 2022
$2.3M
Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH086633NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH116527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the era of big data, univariate models have widely been used as a workhorse tool for quickly producing marginal estimators; and this is true even when in a high-dimensional dense setting, in which many features are "true," but weak signals. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) epitomize this type of setting. Although the GWAS marginal estimator is popular, it has long been criticized for ignoring the correlation structure of genetic variants (i.e., the linkage disequilibrium [LD] pattern). In this paper, we study the effects of LD pattern on the GWAS marginal estimator and investigate whether or not additionally accounting for the LD can improve the prediction accuracy of complex traits. We consider a general high-dimensional dense setting for GWAS and study a class of ridge-type estimators, including the popular marginal estimator and the best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) estimator as two special cases. We show that the performance of GWAS marginal estimator depends on the LD pattern through the first three moments of its eigenvalue distribution. Furthermore, we uncover that the relative performance of GWAS marginal and BLUP estimators highly depends on the ratio of GWAS sample size over the number of genetic variants. Particularly, our finding reveals that the marginal estimator can easily become near-optimal within this class when the sample size is relatively small, even though it ignores the LD pattern. On the other hand, BLUP estimator has substantially better performance than the marginal estimator as the sample size increases toward the number of genetic variants, which is typically in millions. Therefore, adjusting for the LD (such as in the BLUP) is most needed when GWAS sample size is large. We illustrate the importance of our results by using the simulated data and real GWAS.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyLinkage DisequilibriumMultifactorial InheritanceComputer SimulationData AccuracyHumansSample SizeBLUPGWAShigh-dimension predictionmarginal estimatorpolygenic risk scoreridge-type estimator

Identifiers

PMID35278218
PMCPMC9464799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.