ArticleGenetic epidemiology2025
Bayesian Effect Size Ranking to Prioritise Genetic Risk Variants in Common Diseases for Follow-Up Studies.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Genetic pleiotropy underlying obesity and autoimmune disorders: a large-scale cross-trait gwas analysis in European ancestry populations.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Mini review: Interleukin-32 as a key mediator of type 1 diabetes pathogenesis.Frontiers in immunology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological datasets often consist of thousands or millions of variables, e.g. genetic variants or biomarkers, and when sample sizes are large it is common to find many associated with an outcome of interest, for example, disease risk in a GWAS, at high levels of statistical significance, but with very small effects. The False Discovery Rate (FDR) is used to identify effects of interest based on ranking variables according to their statistical significance. Here, we develop a complementary measure to the FDR, the priorityFDR, that ranks variables by a combination of effect size and significance, allowing further prioritisation among a set of variables that pass a significance or FDR threshold. Applying to the largest GWAS of type 1 diabetes to date (15,573 cases and 158,408 controls), we identified 26 independent genetic associations, including two newly-reported loci, with qualitatively lower priorityFDRs than the remaining 175 signals. We detected putatively causal type 1 diabetes risk genes using Mendelian Randomisation, and found that these were located disproportionately close to low priorityFDR signals (p = 0.005), as were genes in the IL-2 pathway (p = 0.003). Selecting variables on both effect size and significance can lead to improved prioritisation for mechanistic follow-up studies from genetic and other large biological datasets.
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.