The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GWAMA: software for genome-wide association meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the recent success of genome-wide association studies in identifying novel loci contributing effects to complex human traits, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity, much of the genetic component of variation in these phenotypes remains unexplained. One way to improving power to detect further novel loci is through meta-analysis of studies from the same population, increasing the sample size over any individual study. Although statistical software analysis packages incorporate routines for meta-analysis, they are ill equipped to meet the challenges of the scale and complexity of data generated in genome-wide association studies. RESULTS: We have developed flexible, open-source software for the meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. The software incorporates a variety of error trapping facilities, and provides a range of meta-analysis summary statistics. The software is distributed with scripts that allow simple formatting of files containing the results of each association study and generate graphical summaries of genome-wide meta-analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: The GWAMA (Genome-Wide Association Meta-Analysis) software has been developed to perform meta-analysis of summary statistics generated from genome-wide association studies of dichotomous phenotypes or quantitative traits. Software with source files, documentation and example data files are freely available online at http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/GWAMA.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses.
Purcell, S., Neale, B., Todd-Brown, K., Thomas, L., Ferreira, M. A. R., Bender, D., Maller, J., Sklar, P., de Bakker, P. I. W., Daly, M. J., et al. (2007) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/519795 · Cited by 34,089
Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls
The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Management Committee, Burton, P. R., Clayton, D. G., Cardon, L. R., Craddock, N., Deloukas, P., Duncanson, A., Kwiatkowski, D. P., McCarthy, M. I., et al. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05911 · Cited by 9,442
Self-citationA second generation human haplotype map of over 3.1 million SNPs
The International HapMap Consortium (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06258 · Cited by 4,438
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256
Genomic Control for Association Studies
Devlin, B., & Roeder, K. (1999) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.1999.00997.x · Cited by 3,162 · cited 2×
“…software incorporates tools to align studies to the same reference strand, irrespective of the GWA genotyping product, where possible, and optionally performs genomic control [11] of sum-mary statistics to correct for population structure within each study, and potential variation between studies.”
MethodInfluentialA new multipoint method for genome-wide association studies by imputation of genotypes
Marchini, J., Howie, B., Myers, S., McVean, G., & Donnelly, P. (2007) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng2088 · Cited by 2,609
Practical aspects of imputation-driven meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies
de Bakker, P. I. W., Ferreira, M. A. R., Jia, X., Neale, B. M., Raychaudhuri, S., & Voight, B. F. (2008) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddn288 · Cited by 531 · cited 2×
“However, we assume that studies have been otherwise filtered for appropriate quality control metrics to exclude poorly genotyped or imputed SNPs [12].”
Background
Cited by
Meta-Analysis of 74,046 Individuals Identifies 11 New Susceptibility Loci for Alzheimer’s Disease
(EADI), E. A. D. I., Lambert, J.-C., (GERAD), G. A. E. R. I. A. D., Alzheimer's Disease Genetic Consortium (ADGC), (CHARGE), C. F. H. A. A. R. I. G. E., Ibrahim-Verbaas, C. A., Harold, D., Naj, A. C., Sims, R., Bellenguez, C., et al. (2013) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2802 · Cited by 4,336
A comprehensive 1000 Genomes–based genome-wide association meta-analysis of coronary artery disease
the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium (2015) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3396 · Cited by 2,447
Genome-wide association studies
Uffelmann, E., Huang, Q. Q., Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., Okada, Y., Martin, A. R., Martin, H. C., Lappalainen, T., & Posthuma, D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-021-00056-9 · Cited by 1,849
Kettunen, J., Demirkan, A., Würtz, P., Draisma, H. H. M., Haller, T., Rawal, R., Vaarhorst, A., Kangas, A. J., Lyytikäinen, L.-P., Pirinen, M., et al. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms11122 · Cited by 738
Day, F., Karaderi, T., Jones, M. R., Meun, C., He, C., Drong, A., Kraft, P., Lin, N., Huang, H., Broer, L., et al. (2018) · PLOS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007813 · Cited by 619
Metadata
- Authors
- Mägi, R., & Morris, A. P.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2010-05-28
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 288-288
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970560511
- Cited by
- 603
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 10.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.
