ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Identifying direct risk factors in UK Biobank via simultaneous Bayesian-frequentist model-averaged hypothesis testing using Doublethink.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. 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.
- Identifying direct risk factors in UK Biobank via simultaneous Bayesian-frequentist model-averaged hypothesis testing using Doublethink.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Spatiotemporal patterns of prevalence and mortality from respiratory infections and tuberculosis across Japan and its prefectures.PloS one · 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
Big data approaches to discovering nongenetic risk factors have lagged behind genome-wide association studies that routinely uncover novel genetic risk factors for diverse diseases. Instead, epidemiology typically focuses on candidate risk factors. Since modern biobanks contain thousands of potential risk factors, candidate approaches may introduce bias, inadequately control for multiple testing, and overlook important signals. Doublethink, a model-averaged hypothesis testing approach, offers a solution that simultaneously controls the Bayesian false discovery rate (FDR) and frequentist familywise error rate (FWER) while accounting for uncertainty in variable selection. Here, we investigate direct risk factors for COVID-19 hospitalization from among 1,912 variables in 201,917 UK Biobank participants by implementing a Doublethink-based exposome-wide association study using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Focusing on the 2020 outbreak, we find nine individual variables and seven groups of variables exposome-wide significant at 9% FDR and 0.05% FWER. We identify significant direct effects among relatively overlooked risk factors including aging, dementia, and prior infection, which we evaluate in relation to studies of other populations. We detect significant direct effects among some commonly reported risk factors like age, sex, and obesity, but not others like cardiovascular disease. The effects of hypertension, depression, and diabetes appeared to be mediated via general comorbidity. Doublethink produces interchangeable posterior odds and
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.