Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42901984›Full record

ArticleNature genetics2026

Multiancestry conditional and joint analysis applied to GWAS summary statistics.

Xiaotong Wang, Yong Wang, Jian Yang, Peter M Visscher, Naomi R Wray, Loic Yengo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xiaotong Wang *Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. xiaotong.wang@psych.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8257-546X
Yong Wang *Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-9004
Jian YangNew Cornerstone Science Laboratory, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2001-2474
Peter M VisscherPioneer Centre for SMARTbiomed, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Naomi R WrayDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Loic YengoInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4272-9305

Funding

Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (Danish National Research Foundation) P4Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) FL180100072Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC) FT220100069Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 1173790
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conditional and joint (COJO) analysis of genome-wide association study (GWAS) data is a standard post-GWAS analysis for identifying statistically independent associations. Although GWAS meta-analyses are increasingly conducted across multiple ancestry groups, the optimal strategy for multiancestry COJO analysis remains unclear. Here we introduce Manc-COJO, a method for multiancestry COJO analysis. Simulations and real-data analyses show that Manc-COJO improves detection of independent association signals while reducing false positives compared with single-ancestry COJO implemented in genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA) and its ad-hoc multiancestry adaptations. We also introduce Manc-COJO:FIX, a follow-up algorithm to identify ancestry-specific independent associations. The C++ implementation of Manc-COJO is over 120-fold faster than GCTA-COJO and supports linkage disequilibrium references derived from either individual-level genotype data or pre-computed matrices, facilitating analyses when data sharing is limited.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.