Cited by 95Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Correcting “winner's curse” in odds ratios from genomewide association findings for major complex human diseases

Open access
Zhong, Hua, Prentice, Ross L.·2010·Genetic Epidemiology

Abstract

Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) provide an important approach for identifying common genetic variants that predispose to human disease. However, odds ratio (OR) estimates for the reported findings from GWAS discovery data are typically affected by a bias away from the null sometimes referred to the “winner's curse”. Also standard confidence intervals (CIs) may have far from the desired coverage rates. We applied a bias reduction method to GWAS findings from several major complex human diseases, including breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, type I diabetes, and type II diabetes. We found the simple bias correction procedure allows one to estimate bias‐adjusted ORs that have substantial consistency with ORs from subsequent replication studies, and that corresponding selection‐adjusted CIs appear to help quantify the uncertainty of the findings. Selection‐adjusted ORs and CIs can provide a reliable summary of GWAS data, and can help to choose single nucleotide polymorphisms for subsequent validation studies. Genet. Epidemiol. 34:78–91, 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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/gepi.20437

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The smaller odds ratios estimated from the replication data could be explained by the winner's curse and shrinkage to the mean.

    “Moreover, the winner's curse and shrinkage to the mean (22,25,26) could explain the smaller odds ratios that we estimated from the replication data (Table 2).”
  • In many crosses, the estimated effect size is inflated by the Beavis effect or winner's curse.

    “In many cases as well, the effect size estimated in the cross will be an overestimate due to the Beavis effect/winner’s curse101,102”

    From Rare and common variants: twenty arguments (2012) · cites this paper as [102]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhong, H., & Prentice, R. L.
Affiliations
Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Zhong, Hua
Venue
Genetic Epidemiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-28
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
78-91
ISSN
  • 0741-0395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2272
OpenAlex
W1972929463
Cited by
94
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetic Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (HHSN268200764314C)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA53996, P01CA053996)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
winner's curse, genome-wide association study, confidence interval coverage, selection bias, complex diseases, single nucleotide polymorphisms, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, replication study
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Disease, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Prostatic Neoplasms, Colorectal Neoplasms, Bias, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genome-Wide Association Study

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