Cited by 693Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Random-Effects Model Aimed at Discovering Associations in Meta-Analysis of Genome-wide Association Studies

Open access
Han, Buhm, Eskin, Eleazar·2011·The American Journal of Human Genetics

Abstract

Meta-analysis is an increasingly popular tool for combining multiple different genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in a single aggregate analysis in order to identify associations with very small effect sizes. Because the data of a meta-analysis can be heterogeneous, referring to the differences in effect sizes between the collected studies, what is often done in the literature is to apply both the fixed-effects model (FE) under an assumption of the same effect size between studies and the random-effects model (RE) under an assumption of varying effect size between studies. However, surprisingly, RE gives less significant p values than FE at variants that actually show varying effect sizes between studies. This is ironic because RE is designed specifically for the case in which there is heterogeneity. As a result, usually, RE does not discover any associations that FE did not discover. In this paper, we show that the underlying reason for this phenomenon is that RE implicitly assumes a markedly conservative null-hypothesis model, and we present a new random-effects model that relaxes the conservative assumption. Unlike the traditional RE, the new method is shown to achieve higher statistical power than FE when there is heterogeneity, indicating that the new method has practical utility for discovering associations in the meta-analysis of GWASs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.04.014

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Han, B., & Eskin, E.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Eskin, Eleazar
Venue
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
88
Issue
5
Pages
586-598
ISSN
0002-9297 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042421957
Cited by
680
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Human Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01da024417-02)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K25HL080079)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01-DA024417)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (N01 ES045530)
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 › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
random effects models, genome-wide association study, meta-analysis, heterogeneity, fixed effects model, statistical power, null hypothesis, association discovery
MeSH terms
Crohn Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Models, Genetic, Models, Statistical, Likelihood Functions, Quantitative Trait Loci, 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