This analysis reveals the impact of data processing on effect size and hypothesis testing in GWAS, suggesting tools to enhance reproducibility.
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are crucial to human genetics research, yet their stability and reproducibility are often questioned. This work describes, analyzes, and provides tools for overcoming reproducibility challenges in two highly popular components of GWAS: set-based (a) hypothesis testing and (b) effect size estimation. Specifically, we focus on how the set-based natures of (a) and (b) often fuel non-reproducible results due to differences in data processing pipelines that are rarely discussed. First, we describe the processing challenges in a statistical model misspecification framework. Second, we analytically calculate the differences in power and amounts of bias that can arise in (a) and (b), respectively, due to small data processing choices. Third, we provide tools for quantifying and avoiding the data processing obstacles in GWAS. We validate our analytical calculations through a simulation study, and we demonstrate the aforementioned challenges empirically through analysis of a whole-exome sequencing study of pancreatic cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kui et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: