CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Portability of 245 polygenic scores when derived from the UK Biobank and applied to 9 ancestry groups from the same cohort

Privé, Florian, Aschard, Hugues, Carmi, Shai, Folkersen, Lasse, Hoggart, Clive, O’Reilly, Paul F., Vilhjálmsson, Bjarni J.·2022·The American Journal of Human Genetics
DOI 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.008

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.008

Cites

18 of 18 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

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?

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 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Choi, 2020, Tutorial: a guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses, Nat. Protoc., 15, 2759, 10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1 · DOI
  2. de los Campos, 2010, Predicting genetic predisposition in humans: the promise of whole-genome markers, Nat. Rev. Genet., 11, 880, 10.1038/nrg2898 · DOI
  3. Abraham, 2014, Accurate and robust genomic prediction of celiac disease using statistical learning, PLoS Genet., 10, e1004137, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004137 · DOI
  4. Privé, 2019, Efficient implementation of penalized regression for genetic risk prediction, Genetics, 212, 65, 10.1534/genetics.119.302019 · DOI
  5. Bycroft, 2018, The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data, Nature, 562, 203, 10.1038/s41586-018-0579-z · DOI · Paper page
  6. Loh, 2018, Mixed-model association for biobank-scale datasets, Nat. Genet., 50, 906, 10.1038/s41588-018-0144-6 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Qian, 2020, A fast and scalable framework for large-scale and ultrahigh-dimensional sparse regression with application to the UK Biobank, PLoS Genet., 16, e1009141, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009141 · DOI
  8. Wang, 2020, Theoretical and empirical quantification of the accuracy of polygenic scores in ancestry divergent populations, Nat. Commun., 11, 3865, 10.1038/s41467-020-17719-y · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bitarello, 2020, Polygenic scores for height in admixed populations, G3 (Bethesda), 10, 4027, 10.1534/g3.120.401658 · DOI
  10. Cavazos, 2021, Inclusion of variants discovered from diverse populations improves polygenic risk score transferability, HGG Adv, 2, 100017
  11. Berg, 2019, Reduced signal for polygenic adaptation of height in UK Biobank, eLife, 8, e39725, 10.7554/eLife.39725 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Sohail, 2019, Polygenic adaptation on height is overestimated due to uncorrected stratification in genome-wide association studies, eLife, 8, e39702, 10.7554/eLife.39702 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Haworth, 2019, Apparent latent structure within the UK Biobank sample has implications for epidemiological analysis, Nat. Commun., 10, 333, 10.1038/s41467-018-08219-1 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Abraham, 2017, FlashPCA2: principal component analysis of Biobank-scale genotype datasets, Bioinformatics, 33, 2776, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx299 · DOI
  15. Privé, 2018, Efficient analysis of large-scale genome-wide data with two R packages: bigstatsr and bigsnpr, Bioinformatics, 34, 2781, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty185 · DOI
  16. Privé, 2020, Efficient toolkit implementing best practices for principal component analysis of population genetic data, Bioinformatics, 36, 4449, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa520 · DOI
  17. Zhang, 2020, Fast and robust ancestry prediction using principal component analysis, Bioinformatics, 36, 3439, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa152 · DOI
  18. Chen, 2013, Improved ancestry inference using weights from external reference panels, Bioinformatics, 29, 1399, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt144 · DOI
  19. Byun, 2017, Ancestry inference using principal component analysis and spatial analysis: a distance-based analysis to account for population substructure, BMC Genomics, 18, 789, 10.1186/s12864-017-4166-8 · DOI
  20. Alexander, 2009, Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals, Genome Res., 19, 1655, 10.1101/gr.094052.109 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Raj, 2014, fastSTRUCTURE: variational inference of population structure in large SNP data sets, Genetics, 197, 573, 10.1534/genetics.114.164350 · DOI
  22. Frichot, 2014, Fast and efficient estimation of individual ancestry coefficients, Genetics, 196, 973, 10.1534/genetics.113.160572 · DOI
  23. Haller, 2017, MixFit: Methodology for computing ancestry-related genetic scores at the individual level and its application to the Estonian and Finnish population studies, PLoS ONE, 12, e0170325, 10.1371/journal.pone.0170325 · DOI
  24. Cheng, 2017, Fast admixture analysis and population tree estimation for SNP and NGS data, Bioinformatics, 33, 2148, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx098 · DOI
  25. Jin, 2019, GRAF-pop: a fast distance-based method to infer subject ancestry from multiple genotype datasets without principal components analysis, G3 (Bethesda), 9, 2447, 10.1534/g3.118.200925 · DOI
  26. Cabreros, 2019, A likelihood-free estimator of population structure bridging admixture models and principal components analysis, Genetics, 212, 1009, 10.1534/genetics.119.302159 · DOI
  27. Privé, 2020, LDpred2: better, faster, stronger, Bioinformatics, 36, 5424, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1029 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Carroll, 2014, R PheWAS: data analysis and plotting tools for phenome-wide association studies in the R environment, Bioinformatics, 30, 2375, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu197 · DOI
  29. Wu, 2019, Mapping ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM codes to phecodes: workflow development and initial evaluation, JMIR Med. Inform., 7, e14325, 10.2196/14325 · DOI
  30. Zhou, 2018, Efficiently controlling for case-control imbalance and sample relatedness in large-scale genetic association studies, Nat. Genet., 50, 1335, 10.1038/s41588-018-0184-y · DOI · Paper page
  31. Gagliano Taliun, 2020, Exploring and visualizing large-scale genetic associations by using PheWeb, Nat. Genet., 52, 550, 10.1038/s41588-020-0622-5 · DOI
  32. Kunert-Graf, 2020, Allele frequency mismatches and apparent mismappings in UK Biobank SNP data, bioRxiv
  33. Michailidou, 2017, Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci, Nature, 551, 92, 10.1038/nature24284 · DOI
  34. Censin, 2017, Childhood adiposity and risk of type 1 diabetes: A Mendelian randomization study, PLoS Med., 14, e1002362, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002362 · DOI
  35. Behar, 2013, No evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews, Hum. Biol., 85, 859, 10.1353/hub.2013.a548065 · DOI
  36. Zhong, 2008, Bias-reduced estimators and confidence intervals for odds ratios in genome-wide association studies, Biostatistics, 9, 621, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxn001 · DOI
  37. Shi, 2016, Winner’s curse correction and variable thresholding improve performance of polygenic risk modeling based on genome-wide association study summary-level data, PLoS Genet., 12, e1006493, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006493 · DOI
  38. Naseri, 2021, Personalized genealogical history of UK individuals inferred from biobank-scale IBD segments, BMC Biol., 19, 32, 10.1186/s12915-021-00964-y · DOI
  39. Márquez-Luna, 2017, Multiethnic polygenic risk scores improve risk prediction in diverse populations, Genet. Epidemiol., 41, 811, 10.1002/gepi.22083 · DOI
  40. Zhang, 2021, Improved genetic prediction of complex traits from individual-level data or summary statistics, Nat. Commun., 12, 4192, 10.1038/s41467-021-24485-y · DOI
  41. Albiñana, 2021, Leveraging both individual-level genetic data and GWAS summary statistics increases polygenic prediction, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 108, 1001, 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.04.014 · DOI
  42. Fritsche, 2020, Cancer PRSweb: An online repository with polygenic risk scores for major cancer traits and their evaluation in two independent biobanks, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 107, 815, 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.025 · DOI
  43. Lambert, 2021, The Polygenic Score Catalog as an open database for reproducibility and systematic evaluation, Nat. Genet., 53, 420, 10.1038/s41588-021-00783-5 · DOI
  44. Bengtsson, 2021, A Unifying Framework for Parallel and Distributed Processing in R using Futures, arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Privé, F., Aschard, H., Carmi, S., Folkersen, L., Hoggart, C., O’Reilly, P. F., & Vilhjálmsson, B. J.
Venue
The American Journal of Human Genetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
109
Issue
1
Pages
12-23
ISSN
0002-9297
DOI
10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.11.008
Cited by
375
References
18
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2022-02-03)
Licence
Funders
  • Danish National Research Foundation
  • Lundbeckfonden (R248-2017-2003, R335-2019-2339)
  • Aarhus Universitet (58024)

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