Within-sibship GWAS improve estimates of direct genetic effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Estimates from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) represent a combination of the effect of inherited genetic variation (direct effects), demography (population stratification, assortative mating) and genetic nurture from relatives (indirect genetic effects). GWAS using family-based designs can control for demography and indirect genetic effects, but large-scale family datasets have been lacking. We combined data on 159,701 siblings from 17 cohorts to generate population (between-family) and within-sibship (within-family) estimates of genome-wide genetic associations for 25 phenotypes. We demonstrate that existing GWAS associations for height, educational attainment, smoking, depressive symptoms, age at first birth and cognitive ability overestimate direct effects. We show that estimates of SNP-heritability, genetic correlations and Mendelian randomization involving these phenotypes substantially differ when calculated using within-sibship estimates. For example, genetic correlations between educational attainment and height largely disappear. In contrast, analyses of most clinical phenotypes (e.g. LDL-cholesterol) were generally consistent between population and within-sibship models. We also report compelling evidence of polygenic adaptation on taller human height using within-sibship data. Large-scale family datasets provide new opportunities to quantify direct effects of genetic variation on human traits and diseases.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".