Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40080676›Full record

ArticleGenetics2025

Divide and conquer approach for genome-wide association studies.

Mustafa İsmail Özkaraca, Mulya Agung, Pau Navarro, Albert Tenesa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mustafa İsmail ÖzkaracaThe Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6114-1304
Mulya AgungThe Institute of Genetics and Cancer, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9521-2177
Pau NavarroThe Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5576-8584
Albert TenesaThe Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH25 9RG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4884-4475

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/10002070Health Data Research UK HDR-9004Medical Research Council MC_UU_00007/10National Institute for Health Research NIHR202639
6 · The paper itself

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

Genome-Wide Association StudyComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideGenome-wide association studies (GWAS)meta-analysispopulation structurewinner's curse

Identifiers

PMID40080676
PMCPMC12005250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.