Accounting for genetic effect heterogeneity in fine-mapping and improving power to detect gene-environment interactions with SharePro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical gene-by-environment interaction (GxE) analysis can be used to characterize genetic effect heterogeneity but has a high multiple testing burden in the context of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We adapt a colocalization method, SharePro, to account for effect heterogeneity in fine-mapping and identify candidates for GxE analysis with reduced multiple testing burden. SharePro demonstrates improved power for both fine-mapping and GxE analysis compared to existing methods as well as well-controlled false type I error in simulations. Using smoking status stratified GWAS summary statistics, we identify genetic effects on lung function modulated by smoking status that are not identified by existing methods. Additionally, using sex stratified GWAS summary statistics, we characterize sex differentiated genetic effects on fat distribution. In summary, we have developed an analytical framework to account for effect heterogeneity in fine-mapping and subsequently improve power for GxE analysis. The SharePro software for GxE analysis is openly available at https://github.com/zhwm/SharePro_gxe . Zhang et al. present an efficient method to simultaneously account for heterogeneity in fine-mapping and improve statistical power of gene-environment interaction analysis, with summary statistics from genome-wide association studies.
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 | 0.019 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".