↓ Skip to main content

A correction for sample overlap in genome-wide association studies in a polygenic pleiotropy-informed framework

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A correction for sample overlap in genome-wide association studies in a polygenic pleiotropy-informed framework
Published in
BMC Genomics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4859-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marissa LeBlanc, Verena Zuber, Wesley K. Thompson, Ole A. Andreassen, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Working Groups of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Arnoldo Frigessi, Bettina Kulle Andreassen

Abstract

There is considerable evidence that many complex traits have a partially shared genetic basis, termed pleiotropy. It is therefore useful to consider integrating genome-wide association study (GWAS) data across several traits, usually at the summary statistic level. A major practical challenge arises when these GWAS have overlapping subjects. This is particularly an issue when estimating pleiotropy using methods that condition the significance of one trait on the signficance of a second, such as the covariate-modulated false discovery rate (cmfdr). We propose a method for correcting for sample overlap at the summary statistic level. We quantify the expected amount of spurious correlation between the summary statistics from two GWAS due to sample overlap, and use this estimated correlation in a simple linear correction that adjusts the joint distribution of test statistics from the two GWAS. The correction is appropriate for GWAS with case-control or quantitative outcomes. Our simulations and data example show that without correcting for sample overlap, the cmfdr is not properly controlled, leading to an excessive number of false discoveries and an excessive false discovery proportion. Our correction for sample overlap is effective in that it restores proper control of the false discovery rate, at very little loss in power. With our proposed correction, it is possible to integrate GWAS summary statistics with overlapping samples in a statistical framework that is dependent on the joint distribution of the two GWAS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 31 20%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 8%
Other 12 8%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 49 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Neuroscience 16 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 61 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,386,934
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,979
of 10,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,091
of 327,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#83
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,626 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.