Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quality Control Procedures for Genome‐Wide Association Studies

Open access
Turner, Stephen, Armstrong, Loren L., Bradford, Yuki, Carlson, Christopher S., Crawford, Dana C., Crenshaw, Andrew T., de Andrade, Mariza, Doheny, Kimberly F., Haines, Jonathan L., Hayes, Geoffrey, Jarvik, Gail, Jiang, Lan, Kullo, Iftikhar J., Li, Rongling, Ling, Hua, Manolio, Teri A., Matsumoto, Martha, McCarty, Catherine A., McDavid, Andrew N., Mirel, Daniel B., Paschall, Justin E., Pugh, Elizabeth W., Rasmussen, Luke V., Wilke, Russell A., Zuvich, Rebecca L., Ritchie, Marylyn D.·2011·Current Protocols in Human Genetics

Abstract

Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) are being conducted at an unprecedented rate in population‐based cohorts and have increased our understanding of the pathophysiology of complex disease. Regardless of context, the practical utility of this information will ultimately depend upon the quality of the original data. Quality control (QC) procedures for GWAS are computationally intensive, operationally challenging, and constantly evolving. Here we enumerate some of the challenges in QC of GWAS data and describe the approaches that the electronic MEdical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network is using for quality assurance in GWAS data, thereby minimizing potential bias and error in GWAS results. We discuss common issues associated with QC of GWAS data, including data file formats, software packages for data manipulation and analysis, sex chromosome anomalies, sample identity, sample relatedness, population substructure, batch effects, and marker quality. We propose best practices and discuss areas of ongoing and future research. Curr. Protoc. Hum. Genet. 68:1.19.1‐1.19.18 © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/0471142905.hg0119s68

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Turner, S., Armstrong, L. L., Bradford, Y., Carlson, C. S., Crawford, D. C., Crenshaw, A. T., de Andrade, M., Doheny, K. F., Haines, J. L., Hayes, G., Jarvik, G., Jiang, L., Kullo, I. J., Li, R., Ling, H., Manolio, T. A., Matsumoto, M., McCarty, C. A., McDavid, A. N., Mirel, D. B., Paschall, J. E., Pugh, E. W., Rasmussen, L. V., Wilke, R. A., Zuvich, R. L., & Ritchie, M. D.
Venue
Current Protocols in Human Genetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
Unit1.19-Unit1.19
ISSN
  • 1934-8258 (ISSN-L)
  • 1934-8266
OpenAlex
W1878939331
Cited by
356
References
15
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality Control Procedures for Genome‐Wide Association Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/0471142905.hg0119s68
The paper
Turner, S., Armstrong, L. L., Bradford, Y., Carlson, C. S., Crawford, D. C., Crenshaw, A. T., de Andrade, M., Doheny, K. F., Haines, J. L., Hayes, G., Jarvik, G., Jiang, L., Kullo, I. J., Li, R., Ling, H., Manolio, T. A., Matsumoto, M., McCarty, C. A., McDavid, A. N., . . . Ritchie, M. D. (2011). Quality Control Procedures for Genome‐Wide Association Studies. Current Protocols in Human Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142905.hg0119s68

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.