Integrating Variant Functional Annotation Scores Have Varied Abilities To Improve Power Of Genome-Wide Association Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Functional annotations have the potential to increase power of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) by prioritizing variants according to their biological function, but this potential has not been well studied. We comprehensively evaluated all 1,132 traits in the UK Biobank whose SNP-heritability estimates were given "medium" or "high" labels by Neale’s lab. For each trait, we integrated GWAS summary statistics of close to 8 million common variants (minor allele frequency > 1%) with either their 75 individual functional scores or their meta-scores, using three different data-integration methods. Overall, the number of new genome-wide significant findings after data-integration increases as a trait SNP-heritability estimate increases. However, there is a trade-off between new findings and loss of baseline GWAS findings, resulting in similar total numbers of significant findings between using GWAS alone and integrating GWAS with functional scores, across all 1,132 traits analyzed and all three data-integration methods considered. Our findings suggest that, even with the current biobank-level sample size, more informative functional scores and/or new data-integration methods are needed to further improve power of GWAS of common variants.
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 | 0.049 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".