Multi-ancestry genome-wide association analyses: a comparison of meta- and mega-analyses in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing need for effective incorporation of high-dimensional genetics data from individuals with varied ancestry in genome-wide association (GWAS) analyses. Classically, multi-ancestry GWAS analyses are performed using statistical meta-analysis to combine results conducted within homogeneous ancestry groups. The emergence of cosmopolitan reference panels makes collective preprocessing of GWAS data possible, but impact on downstream GWAS results in a mega-analysis framework merits investigation. We utilized GWAS data from the multi-national Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study to investigate differences in GWAS findings using a homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis versus a heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis pipeline. Maternal fasting and 1-hr glucose and metabolomics measured during a 2-hr 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test during early third trimester pregnancy were evaluated as phenotypes. RESULTS: For the homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis pipeline, variant data were prepared by identifying sets of individuals with similar ancestry and imputing to ancestry-specific reference panels. GWAS was conducted within each ancestry group and results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. For the heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis pipeline, data for all individuals were collectively imputed to the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) cosmopolitan reference panel, and GWAS was conducted using a unified mega-analysis. The meta-analysis pipeline identified genome-wide significant associations for 15 variants in a region close to GCK on chromosome 7 with maternal fasting glucose and no significant findings for 1-hr glucose. Associations in this same region were identified using the mega-analysis pipeline, along with a well-documented association at MTNR1B on chromosome 11 with both fasting and 1-hr maternal glucose. For metabolomics analyses, the number of significant findings in the heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis far exceeded those from the homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis and confirmed many previously documented associations, but genomic inflation factors were much more variable. CONCLUSIONS: For multi-ancestry GWAS, heterogeneous ancestry mega-analysis generates a rich set of variants for analysis using a cosmopolitan reference panel and results in vastly more significant, biologically credible and previously documented associations than a homogeneous ancestry meta-analysis approach. Genomic inflation factors do indicate that findings from the mega-analysis pipeline may merit cautious interpretation and further follow-up.
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 | 0.065 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".