ArticlePLoS genetics2026
Simplifying causal gene identification in GWAS loci.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome-wide analyses identify 60 loci associated with liver triglyceride content.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Ancient DNA reveals that natural selection has upregulated the immune system over the last 10,000 years.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- An integrative framework for drug target discovery bridging clinical trial and genetic data insights.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Realizing the promise of genome-wide association studies for effector gene prediction.Nature genetics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) help to identify disease-linked genetic variants, but pinpointing the most likely causal genes in GWAS loci remains challenging. Existing GWAS gene prioritization tools are powerful but often use complex black box models trained on datasets containing biases. Here, we used a data-driven approach to construct a truth set of causal genes in 200 GWAS loci. We found that a simple logistic regression model performed as well as a more complex XGBoost model, and that many commonly-used gene prioritization features could be removed without meaningfully affecting performance (e.g., expression quantitative trait locus colocalization and Mendelian randomization). We present CALDERA, a gene prioritization tool that uses a logistic regression model and uses just four input features. In independent benchmarking datasets of resolved GWAS loci, CALDERA achieved state-of-the-art performance in comparison with other methods (FLAMES, L2G, and cS2G). CALDERA outputs causal gene probabilities for all genes in a given GWAS locus and we show that these probabilities are well-calibrated. Applying CALDERA to 93 UK Biobank traits, we predicted 11,956 putative causal genes, potentially resolving up to 52% of loci. Overall, CALDERA provides a powerful solution for prioritizing potentially causal genes in GWAS loci that minimizes the data processing required to construct input features and generates an easily-interpretable output score.
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.