Back

LDSC regression-based heritability estimates can be biased when summary statistics are obtained from meta-analysis or imputed variants

Dong, R.; Wang, M.; Wang, G. T.; deWan, A. T.; Leal, S. M.

2026-07-09 genetics
10.64898/2026.07.05.736573 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Motivation: Linkage disequilibrium score (LDSC) regression is a popular method to estimate heritability for complex traits using summary statistics and linkage disequilibrium (LD) reference panels, offering a practical alternative to methods requiring individual-level data. Despite its widespread use, LDSC regression can produce biased heritability estimates. The properties of LDSC regression were investigated using summary statistics from several large-scale Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies and a variety of LD reference panels. These heritability estimates were compared with those obtained from individual-level data. Results: When LDSC regression was applied to summary statistics obtained from meta-analysis, it led to an underestimation of heritability. This can occur if meta-analysis is used to combine studies of different ancestries leading to the caveat of the lack of an appropriate LD reference panel. Additionally meta-analyses often include studies with different phenotype definitions, that not only impacts heritability estimates but also makes them uninterpretable. Summary statistics generated from imputed variants, even those with high imputation accuracy, can lead to underestimation of heritability. For example, the heritability estimates for AD were reduced from 0.265 (se 0.148) to 0.160 (se 0.041) when imputed variants (INFO>0.9) were included compared to analyzing only genotype array variants. A decrease in heritability estimates was also observed when individual-level imputed variant data were analyzed using GCTA-GREML. Our findings highlight the caveats of estimating heritability using meta-analysis summary statistics or imputed data instead of genotyped or sequence data.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neurobiology of Aging
107 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
16.9%
2
Genetic Epidemiology
55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.8%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.8%
5
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.3%
6
European Journal of Human Genetics
58 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Human Molecular Genetics
141 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
9
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
10
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.2%
11
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
12
Alzheimer's & Dementia
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
13
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
15
G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
Journal of Neurogenetics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
17
Human Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Heredity
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
19
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
20
Alzheimer's & Dementia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
21
The American Journal of Human Genetics
234 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
American Journal of Epidemiology
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
GeroScience
109 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
27
Translational Psychiatry
260 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
28
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%