ArticleGenetics2025
Divide and conquer approach for genome-wide association studies.
Article in Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are computationally intensive, requiring significant time and resources with computational complexity scaling at least linearly with sample size. Here, we present an accurate and resource-efficient pipeline for GWAS that mitigates the impact of sample size on computational demands. Our approach involves (1) randomly partitioning the cohort into equally sized sub-cohorts, (2) conducting independent GWAS within each sub-cohort, and (3) integrating the results using a novel meta-analysis technique that accounts for population structure and other confounders between sub-cohorts. Importantly, we demonstrate through simulations and real-data examples in humans that our approach effectively manages analyzing related individuals, a critical factor in real datasets, while controlling for inflated effect sizes, a phenomenon known as winner's curse. We show that our method achieves the same discovery levels as standard approaches but with significantly reduced computational costs. Additionally, it is well-suited for incremental GWAS as new samples are added over time. Our implementation within a bioinformatics workflow management system enhances reproducibility and scalability.
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.