ArticleResearch square2026
A resource of "bottom-line" variant associations for 1,281 complex traits by integrating data across published genome-wide association studies.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Through an analysis of 2,602 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) across 830 human traits, we find that most (56% of) well-studied traits have at least two published GWAS, and many (29%) have at least five. We show that the lack of an established approach for adjudicating variant association estimates across multiple published studies can lead to uncertainty and invalid inferences: using all associations ever published for a trait increases true positives (by 12%) but also false positives (by 55%) relative to using associations from the largest published GWAS for the trait. We employ a "bottom-line" procedure for meta-analyzing published GWAS while inferring and accounting for sample overlap, which identifies a more accurate and comprehensive list of associations relative to existing approaches. Five commonly used bioinformatic methods for post-GWAS analyses produce reliable results when applied to the bottom-line associations. We present these results for 1,281 human complex traits, including 1,839 single-ancestry and 576 trans-ancestry analyses, for browsing or download via the NHGRI Association to Function Knowledge Portal. This resource of "consensus" GWAS results is intended to increase replicability, reuse, and interpretation of GWAS and downstream analyses.
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.