ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Evaluating multi-ancestry genome-wide association methods: Statistical power, population structure, and practical implications.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiancestry conditional and joint analysis applied to GWAS summary statistics.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Exome-wide association study reveals common and rare coding variants shaping chronic pain in 327,642 UK biobank participants.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Integrating multi-ancestry common and rare variant mapping accelerates therapeutic target discovery.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Causal inference in psychiatric research: how to critically evaluate and interpret mendelian randomization studies.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Clinical translation of polygenic scores for prostate cancer screening.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026Review
- Cross-ancestry comparison of aptamer and antibody protein measures.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk scores: Navigating the future of precision medicine through economic, ethical, and scientific advancements.iScience · 2026Review
- Admixture mapping identifies complex trait associations with local ancestry in themedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing availability of diverse biobanks has enabled multi-ancestry genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to enhance the discovery of genetic variants across traits and diseases. However, the choice of an optimal method remains debated, due to challenges in statistical power differences across ancestral groups and approaches to account for population structure. Two primary strategies exist: (1) pooled analysis, which combines individuals from all genetic backgrounds into a single dataset while adjusting for population stratification using principal components, increasing the sample size and statistical power but requiring careful control of population stratification; and (2) meta-analysis, which performs ancestry-group-specific GWASs and subsequently combines summary statistics, potentially capturing fine-scale population structure but facing limitations in handling admixed individuals. Using large-scale simulations with varying sample sizes and ancestry compositions, we compare these methods alongside real data analyses of eight continuous and five binary traits from the UK Biobank (N ≈ 324,000) and the All of Us Research Program (N ≈ 207,000). Our results demonstrate that pooled analysis generally exhibits better statistical power while effectively adjusting for population stratification. We further present a theoretical framework linking power differences to allele-frequency variations across populations. These findings, validated across both biobanks, highlight pooled analysis as a powerful and scalable strategy for multi-ancestry GWASs, improving genetic discovery while maintaining rigorous population structure control.
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.