GWAS quality score for evaluating associated regions in GWAS analyses
Bioinformatics, ISSN: 1367-4811, Vol: 39, Issue: 1
2023
- 1Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- Captures12
- Readers12
- 12
Article Description
Motivation: The number of significantly associated regions reported in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for polygenic traits typically increases with sample size. A traditional tool for quality control and identification of significant regions has been a visual inspection of how significant and correlated genetic variants cluster within a region. However, while inspecting hundreds of regions, this subjective method can misattribute significance to some loci or neglect others that are significant. Results: The GWAS quality score (GQS) identifies suspicious regions and prevents erroneous interpretations with an objective, quantitative and automated method. The GQS assesses all measured single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are linked by inheritance to each other [linkage disequilibrium (LD)] and compares the significance of trait association of each SNP to its LD value for the reported index SNP. A GQS value of 1.0 ascribes a high level of confidence to the entire region and its underlying gene(s), while GQS values <1.0 indicate the need to closely inspect the outliers. We applied the GQS to published and non-published genome-wide summary statistics and report suspicious regions requiring secondary inspection while supporting the majority of reported regions from large-scale published meta-analyses.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85181801624&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad004; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36651666; https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad004/6991168; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad004; https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/39/1/btad004/6991168
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know