Back

PANACEA: a framework to maximise genetic diversity in genome-wide association study meta-analyses

Yap, C. F.; Morris, A.

2026-08-10 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.08.06.26359891 medRxiv
Show abstract

There have been recent efforts by the human genetics research community to increase the genetic diversity of participants contributing to genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of complex human traits and diseases. The traditional multi-ancestry GWAS approach is to first assign participants to continental ancestry labels based on their genetic similarity to individuals in reference datasets. Ancestry-specific GWAS are then conducted separately for each continental label, the results of which are aggregated through multi-ancestry meta-analysis. However, with this approach, a participant may be assigned to an ancestry group that does not reflect their personal view of ethnicity/race or may be excluded because their genetic ancestry is not sufficiently similar to individuals in reference datasets to be assigned to a single group. Here, we present a novel pipeline (PANACEA) for fully inclusive multi-ancestry meta-analysis that employs a continuous and multi-dimensional representation of ancestry that maximises the genetic diversity of GWAS. Through application to multi-ancestry GWAS of type 2 diabetes susceptibility and simulations, we demonstrate that the inclusive pooled analysis provides equivalent protection against population structure to a traditional ancestry-stratified analysis but, importantly, offers increased power to detect association through increased sample size by not excluding participants with outlying ancestry. The pooled inclusive analysis also enables assessment of ancestry-correlated heterogeneity in allelic effects without the need to assign participants to continental labels that may not sufficiently reflect genetic diversity within ancestry groups.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.