Cited by 5,559Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

LD Score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies

Open access
Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Bulik-Sullivan, Brendan K, Loh, Po-Ru, Finucane, Hilary K, Ripke, Stephan, Yang, Jian, Patterson, Nick, Daly, Mark J, Price, Alkes L, Neale, Benjamin M·2015·Nature Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Both polygenicity (many small genetic effects) and confounding biases, such as cryptic relatedness and population stratification, can yield an inflated distribution of test statistics in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, current methods cannot distinguish between inflation from a true polygenic signal and bias. We have developed an approach, LD Score regression, that quantifies the contribution of each by examining the relationship between test statistics and linkage disequilibrium (LD). The LD Score regression intercept can be used to estimate a more powerful and accurate correction factor than genomic control. We find strong evidence that polygenicity accounts for the majority of the inflation in test statistics in many GWAS of large sample size.

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 · 10.1038/ng.3211

Cites

51 of 51 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 52 references

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,065

Metadata

Authors
Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Bulik-Sullivan, B. K., Loh, P.-R., Finucane, H. K., Ripke, S., Yang, J., Patterson, N., Daly, M. J., Price, A. L., & Neale, B. M.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Neale, Benjamin M
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2015-02-02
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
291-295
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2153860431
Cited by
5,559
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 620 · 2025: 852 · 2024: 805 · 2023: 634 · 2022: 612 · 2021: 558 · 2020: 394 · 2019: 392 · 2018: 312 · 2017: 200 · 2016: 120 · 2015: 50
FWCI
155.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01mh094432-04)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/L023784/2, MR/L010305/1, MR/L023784/1)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01 MH094432, U01MH094421, R01MH085548, R01 MH094421, R01MH101244)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006399, F32HG007805)
  • National Cancer Institute (R03CA173785)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025758)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
LD score regression, polygenicity, confounding, linkage disequilibrium, cryptic relatedness, population stratification, genomic control, summary statistics, polygenic traits
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Humans, Regression Analysis, Linkage Disequilibrium, Genome, Human, Sample Size, 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