ArticleBiometrics2023
Cross-trait prediction accuracy of summary statistics in genome-wide association studies.
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.
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.
- Transfer Learning via Regularized Random-effects Linear Discriminant Analysis.Journal of machine learning research : JMLR · 2026Article
- Estimation of Genetic Correlation Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Multiple Sclerosis Using Summary Statistics from Genome-Wide Association Studies.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2023Article
- Ridge Penalization in High-Dimensional Testing With Applications to Imaging Genetics.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Polygenic Risk Score in African populations: progress and challenges.F1000Research · 2022Review
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
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
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.