ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
It's a wrap: deriving distinct discoveries with FDR control after a GWAS pipeline.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The standard analysis pipeline for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is based on marginal tests of association. These are computationally convenient and portable, but the discoveries resulting from their rejections are not immediately interpretable, and require post-processing as "clumping" and "fine mapping." An interesting alternative is provided by conditional independence hypotheses: their rejections lead to the identification of distinct signals across the genome, accounting for measured confounders, and pointing to separate causal pathways. An obstacle to the wide adoption of this approach has been that it requires access to individual level data. Overcoming this barrier, recent work has shown how summary statistics resulting from the standard marginal GWAS analysis can be used as input of a procedure to test conditional independence hypotheses while controlling the false discovery rate. This secondary analysis requires sampling of synthetic negative controls (knockoffs) from a distribution determined by the linkage disequilibrium patterns in the genome of the population under study. In prior work, we have pre-computed this distribution for European genomes, starting from information derived from the UK Biobank. Thus, researchers working with GWAS in a European population can carry out a knockoff analysis with minimal computational costs, using the distributed routine GhostKnockoffGWAS. Here we introduce and release a new software (solveblock) that extends this capability to a much richer collection of studies. Given a set of genotyped samples, or a reference dataset, our pipeline efficiently estimates the high-dimensional correlation matrices that describe dependencies across the genome, making rather common sparsity assumptions. Taking this sample-specific estimate as input, the software identifies groups of genetic variants that are highly correlated, and uses them to define an appropriate resolution for conditional independence hypotheses. Finally, we compute the distribution for the exchangeable negative controls necessary to test these hypotheses. The output of solveblock can be passed directly to GhostKnockoffGWAS, allowing users to carry out the complete analysis in a two step procedure. Simulations, based on five UK Biobank sub-populations, illustrate the method's FDR control. The analysis of 26 phenotypes of varying polygenicity in British individuals, results in ≈ 19 additional discoveries, compared to standard marginal association testing. Our code, precompiled software, and processed files for these five sub-populations are openly shared.
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.