Bayesian meta-analysis across genome-wide association studies of diverse phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are a powerful tool for understanding the genetic basis of diseases and traits, but most studies have been conducted in isolation, with a focus on either a single or a set of closely related phenotypes. We describe MetABF, a simple Bayesian framework for performing integrative meta-analysis across multiple GWAS using summary statistics. The approach is applicable across a wide range of study designs and can increase the power by 50% compared to standard frequentist tests when only a subset of studies have a true effect. We demonstrate its utility in a meta-analysis of 20 diverse GWAS which were part of the Wellcome Trust Case-Control Consortium 2. The novelty of the approach is its ability to explore, and assess the evidence for, a range of possible true patterns of association across studies in a computationally efficient framework.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".