SynthesisGenetic epidemiology2025
Correcting for Genomic Inflation Leads to Loss of Power in Large-Scale Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Genetic epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale GWAS meta-analysis of serum antibody levels in healthy individuals reveals distinct genetic architectures.Genes and immunity · 2026Article
- In Situ GWAS in Two Range-Edge Populations of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Identify Genetic Factors of Adaptation to Climate Change.Molecular ecology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inflation in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary statistics represents a major challenge, for which correction methods have been developed. These include the genomic control (GC) method, which uses the λ-value to correct summary statistics, and the linkage disequilibrium score regression (LDSR) method, which uses the LDSR intercept. By using type 2 diabetes (T2D) as an exemplar, we explore factors influencing λ-values and the impact of these corrections on association signals. We find that larger sample sizes increase λ-values due to increased captured polygenicity, while including lower frequency variants decreases λ-values due to reduced power. Comparing T2D genetic associations described in overlapping GWAS meta-analyses of increasing sample size, we find that GC correction reduces the false positive rate and leads to the loss of robust associations. In one of the largest meta-analysis, GC correction results in 39.7% loss of independent loci, substantially reducing the number of detected associations. In comparison, the LDSR intercept correction leads to a loss of up to 25.2% of the independent loci, being therefore less conservative than the GC correction. We conclude that in large, well-powered GWAS meta-analysis of polygenic traits, both GC and LDSR intercept correction leads to power loss, highlighting the need for improved genomic inflation correction methods.
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.