ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Interpretation of 10 years of Alzheimer's disease genetic findings in the perspective of statistical heterogeneity.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cumulative Incidence in Monogenic Alzheimer's Disease and Frontotemporal Dementia: Gene-Gene Interaction Effect.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Targeting Microglial Phagocytosis for Alzheimer's Disease Management: Natural, Pharmacological, Nanoparticle, and Gene Therapy Approaches.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2026Review
- Polygenic score analysis identifies distinct genetic risk profiles in Alzheimer's disease comorbidities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Alzheimer's disease genome-wide association studies in the context of statistical heterogeneity.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- Targeted analysis of dyslexia-associated regions on chromosomes 6, 12 and 15 in large multigenerational cohorts.PloS one · 2025Article
- Deciphering the genetic interplay between depression and dysmenorrhea: a Mendelian randomization study.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Common genetic variants and susceptibility loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been discovered through large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS), GWAS by proxy (GWAX) and meta-analysis of GWAS and GWAX (GWAS+GWAX). However, due to the very low repeatability of AD susceptibility loci and the low heritability of AD, these AD genetic findings have been questioned. We summarize AD genetic findings from the past 10 years and provide a new interpretation of these findings in the context of statistical heterogeneity. We discovered that only 17% of AD risk loci demonstrated reproducibility with a genome-wide significance of P < 5.00E-08 across all AD GWAS and GWAS+GWAX datasets. We highlighted that the AD GWAS+GWAX with the largest sample size failed to identify the most significant signals, the maximum number of genome-wide significant genetic variants or maximum heritability. Additionally, we identified widespread statistical heterogeneity in AD GWAS+GWAX datasets, but not in AD GWAS datasets. We consider that statistical heterogeneity may have attenuated the statistical power in AD GWAS+GWAX and may contribute to explaining the low repeatability (17%) of genome-wide significant AD susceptibility loci and the decreased AD heritability (40-2%) as the sample size increased. Importantly, evidence supports the idea that a decrease in statistical heterogeneity facilitates the identification of genome-wide significant genetic loci and contributes to an increase in AD heritability. Collectively, current AD GWAX and GWAS+GWAX findings should be meticulously assessed and warrant additional investigation, and AD GWAS+GWAX should employ multiple meta-analysis methods, such as random-effects inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis, which is designed specifically for statistical heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.