-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
GWAS to MTAG adjustment factor #214
Comments
Hi. I'm confused by why there is a range. Isn't the single-trait MTAG
roughly a constant multiple of the original GWAS summary statistics across
all SNPs?
…On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 8:40 AM gina-parcesepe ***@***.***> wrote:
I've followed previous advice of running the single trait MTAG to work out
the factor that the MTAG beta's and SE's need to be multiplied by to
compare to the GWAS results.
The mean factor (MTAG_beta/GWAS_beta) is looking fine but for one of my
traits the range for the factor is [0.03, 70.08].
The maxFDR for this trait is ~20% (but was ~19% in the original GWAS).
I'm not sure whether I've understood what you've said on previous issues
on this matter correctly?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#214>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFBUB5POGBPHBFAJUYWR4I3ZG3V3VAVCNFSM6AAAAABJEIERGSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGM2DMMZSHA2TKOI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Hi, it is not roughly the same for one of my traits. Calculated by trait 1: 0.11 [0.08, 0.13] |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I've followed previous advice of running the single trait MTAG to work out the factor that the MTAG beta's and SE's need to be multiplied by to compare to the GWAS results.
The mean factor (MTAG_beta/GWAS_beta) is looking fine but for one of my traits the range for the factor is [0.03, 70.08].
The maxFDR for this trait is ~20% (but was ~19% in the original GWAS).
I'm not sure whether I've understood what you've said on previous issues on this matter correctly?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: