BR-squared: a practical solution to the winner’s curse in genome-wide scans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detrimental effects of the winner's curse, including overestimation of the genetic effects of associated variants and underestimation of sufficient sample sizes for replication studies are well-recognized in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). These effects can be expected to worsen as the field moves from GWAS into whole genome sequencing. To date, few studies have reported statistical adjustments to the naive estimates, due to the lack of suitable statistical methods and computational tools. We have developed an efficient genome-wide non-parametric method that explicitly accounts for the threshold, ranking, and allele frequency effects in whole genome scans. Here, we implement the method to provide bias-reduced estimates via bootstrap re-sampling (BR-squared) for association studies of both disease status and quantitative traits, and we report the results of applying BR-squared to GWAS of psoriasis and HbA1c. We observed over 50% reduction in the genetic effect size estimation for many associated SNPs. This translates into a greater than fourfold increase in sample size requirements for successful replication studies, which in part explains some of the apparent failures in replicating the original signals. Our analysis suggests that adjusting for the winner's curse is critical for interpreting findings from whole genome scans and planning replication and meta-GWAS studies, as well as in attempts to translate findings into the clinical setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it