ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2023
GWAS quality score for evaluating associated regions in GWAS analyses.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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.
- Comprehensive adjudication identifies 111 high-confidence loci for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Ethical Priorities Among Commercial Genomics Professionals : Survey Evidence Highlighting Diversity, Fragmented Privacy Law, and Human Rights Risks as Central Participant Concerns.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Empowering genome-wide association studies via a visualizable test based on the regional association score.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The goldmine of GWAS summary statistics: a systematic review of methods and tools.BioData mining · 2024Article
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
motivationThe number of significantly associated regions reported in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for polygenic traits typically increases with sample size. A traditional tool for quality control and identification of significant regions has been a visual inspection of how significant and correlated genetic variants cluster within a region. However, while inspecting hundreds of regions, this subjective method can misattribute significance to some loci or neglect others that are significant.
resultsThe GWAS quality score (GQS) identifies suspicious regions and prevents erroneous interpretations with an objective, quantitative and automated method. The GQS assesses all measured single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are linked by inheritance to each other [linkage disequilibrium (LD)] and compares the significance of trait association of each SNP to its LD value for the reported index SNP. A GQS value of 1.0 ascribes a high level of confidence to the entire region and its underlying gene(s), while GQS values <1.0 indicate the need to closely inspect the outliers. We applied the GQS to published and non-published genome-wide summary statistics and report suspicious regions requiring secondary inspection while supporting the majority of reported regions from large-scale published meta-analyses. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The GQS code/scripts can be cloned from GitHub (https://github.com/Xswapnil/GQS/). The analyst can use whole-genome summary statistics to estimate GQS for each defined region. We also provide an online tool (http://35.227.18.38/) that gives access to the GQS. The quantitative measure of quality attributes by GQS and its visualization is an objective method that enhances the confidence of each genomic hit. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.