ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Impact of control selection strategies on GWAS results: a study of prostate cancer in the UK Biobank.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to 'Impact of control selection strategies on GWAS results: a study of prostate cancer in the UK Biobank'.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As genome-wide association studies (GWAS) studies move from array-based genotyping to whole exome and genome sequencing, there is a significant increase in cost. Applying an appropriate technique for the selection of which controls to include, in large studies where more potential controls are available than needed for the study, may be a useful technique for minimizing resource intensity whilst maintaining statistical power. We evaluated three control selection strategies in prostate cancer GWAS using 15 250 UK Biobank cases: (a) all controls, (b) matched controls, and (c) random selection. Both (b) and (c) achieved comparable power in detecting significant loci relative to (a), but matched controls (b) showed greater consistency in identifying leading single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). However, using (b) matched controls reduced discovery power by ~30% compared with (a) all controls, highlighting a trade-off. Matching controls (1:4 ratio) offers a cost-effective approach for targeted SNP analysis across phenotypes but may miss novel associations.
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.