ArticleGenes2024
Replication of Known and Identification of Novel Associations in Biobank-Scale Datasets: A Survey Using UK Biobank and FinnGen.
Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- BMI-Dependent Associations of the Estradiol-Linked Polymorphism rs117585797 of theLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Metabolomics and Human Health: Progress, Insights, Challenges and the Concept of a Healthy Metabolome.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- The impact of combined spinal-epidural analgesia (CSEA) on postpartum depression: A Mendelian randomization study.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2026Article
- Intelligence Architectures and Machine Learning Applications in Contemporary Spine Care.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Association Between Genetic Variants inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Harnessing the AI/ML in Drug and Biological Products Discovery and Development: The Regulatory Perspective.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Over the last two decades, numerous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been performed to unveil the genetic architecture of human complex traits. Despite multiple efforts aimed at the trans-biobank integration of GWAS results, no systematic analysis of the variant-level properties affecting the replication of known associations (or identifying novel ones) in genome-wide meta-analysis has yet been performed using biobank-scale data. To address this issue, we performed a systematic comparison of GWAS summary statistics for 679 complex traits in the UK Biobank (UKB) and FinnGen (FG) cohorts. We identified 37,148 index variants with genome-wide associations with at least one trait in either cohort or in the meta-analysis, only 3528 (9.5%) of which were shared between UKB and FG. Nearly twice as many variants (6577) were replicated in another dataset at the significance level adjusted for the number of variants selected for replication. However, as many as 9230 loci failed to be replicated. Moreover, as many as 5813 loci were observed as significant associations only in meta-analysis results, highlighting the importance of trans-biobank meta-analysis efforts. We showed that variants that failed to replicate in UKB or FG tend to correspond to rare, less pleiotropic variants with lower effect sizes and lower LD score values. Genome-wide associations specific to meta-analysis were also enriched in low-effect variants; however, such variants tended to be more common and have more consistent frequencies between populations. Taken together, our results show a relatively high rate of non-replication of genome-wide associations in the studied cohorts and highlight both widely appreciated and less acknowledged properties of the associations affecting their identification and replication.
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.