Back

Impact of control selection strategies on GWAS results: a study of prostate cancer in the UK Biobank

Lu, J.; Thygesen, J. H.; Beaumont, R. N.; Weedon, M. N.; Green, H.

2025-10-09 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.10.08.25337574 medRxiv
Show abstract

As GWAS studies move from array-based genotyping to whole exome and genome sequencing, there is a significant increase in cost. Applying an appropriate technique for the selection of which controls to include, in large studies where more potential controls are available than needed for the study, may be a useful technique for minimising resource intensity while maintaining statistical power. We evaluated three control selection strategies in prostate cancer GWAS using 15,250 UK Biobank cases: (a) all controls, (b) matched controls, and (c) random selection. Both (b) and (c) achieved comparable power in detecting significant loci relative to (a), but matched controls (b) showed greater consistency in identifying leading SNPs. However, using (b) matched controls reduced discovery power by [~]30% compared with (a) all controls, highlighting a trade-off. Matching controls (1:4 ratio) offers a cost-effective approach for targeted SNP analysis across phenotypes but may miss novel associations. Availability and ImplementationR code for implementing matching and random control selection is provided and available on GitHub (https://github.com/Jingzhan-Lu/GWAS-Control-Selection).

Published in Briefings in Bioinformatics (predicted rank #10) · training set

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.