ArticleGenetics2025
GWAS significance thresholds in large cohorts of European ancestry.
Article in Genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards a Standard Threshold for Genome Wide Significance in Dogs.Animal genetics · 2026Article
- Dissecting Alzheimer's disease heterogeneity by cross-trait polygenic prediction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While the P-value threshold of 5.0×10-8 remains the standard for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in humans and other species, it still needs to be updated to reflect the current era of large-scale GWAS, where tens of thousands of sample sizes are used to discover genetic associations at loci with smaller minor allele frequencies. In this study, we used a dataset of 348,501 individuals of European ancestry from the UK Biobank to determine the GWAS thresholds required for multiple testing corrections when considering rare and common variants in additive and dominant GWAS models. Additionally, we employed conditional and joint analysis to quantify the proportion of false significant hits in the GWAS results for 72 traits in the UK Biobank when applying the traditional GWAS cutoff vs our newly proposed P-value thresholds. Overall, the results indicate that the conventional GWAS significance threshold of 5.0×10-8 yields a false-positive rate of between 20% and 30% in GWAS studies that utilize large sample sizes and less common variants. Instead, a more stringent GWAS P-value threshold of 5.0×10-9 is needed when rare variants (with minor allele frequency > 0.1%) are included in the association test for both additive and dominance models within the European ancestry population. However, further validation across diverse datasets and study designs, is needed to evaluate the broader applicability of this proposed threshold.
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.