EraSOR: a software tool to eliminate inflation caused by sample overlap in polygenic score analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk score (PRS) analyses are now routinely applied across biomedical research. However, as PRS studies grow in size, there is an increased risk of sample overlap between the genome-wide association study (GWAS) from which the PRS is derived and the "target sample," in which PRSs are computed and hypotheses are tested. Despite the wide recognition of the sample overlap problem, its potential impact on the results from PRS studies has not yet been quantified, and no analytical solution has been provided. FINDINGS: Here, we first conduct a comprehensive investigation into the scale of the sample overlap problem, finding that PRS results can be substantially inflated even in the presence of minimal overlap. Next, we introduce a method and software, EraSOR (Erase Sample Overlap and Relatedness), which eliminates the inflation caused by sample overlap (and close relatedness) in almost all settings tested here. CONCLUSIONS: EraSOR could be useful in PRS studies (with target sample >1,000) similar to those investigated here, either (i) to mitigate the potential effects of known or unknown intercohort overlap and close relatedness or (ii) as a sensitivity tool to highlight the possible presence of sample overlap before its direct removal, when possible, or else to provide a lower bound on PRS analysis results after accounting for potential sample overlap.
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 | 0.016 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.014 |
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".