{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018698060941828253, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.72093023255814, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Proper joint analysis of summary association statistics requires the adjustment of heterogeneity in SNP coverage pattern

As meta-analysis results published by consortia of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) become increasingly available, many association summary statistics-based multi-locus tests have been developed to jointly evaluate multiple single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to reveal novel genetic architectures of various complex traits. The validity of these approaches relies on the accurate estimate of z-score correlations at considered SNPs, which in turn requires knowledge on the set of SNPs assessed by each study participating in the meta-analysis. However, this exact SNP coverage information is usually unavailable from the meta-analysis results published by GWAS consortia. In the absence of the coverage information, researchers typically estimate the z-score correlations by making oversimplified coverage assumptions. We show through real studies that such a practice can generate highly inflated type I errors, and we demonstrate the proper way to incorporate correct coverage information into multi-locus analyses. We advocate that consortia should make SNP coverage information available when posting their meta-analysis results, and that investigators who develop analytic tools for joint analyses based on summary data should pay attention to the variation in SNP coverage and adjust for it appropriately.