pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02394 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-02 · 🧬 q-bio.GN · stat.ME

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Benchmarking Heritability Estimation Strategies Across 86 Configurations and Their Downstream Effect on Polygenic Risk Score Performance

Muhammad Muneeb , David B. Ascher
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 21:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.GN stat.ME
keywords SNP heritabilitypolygenic risk scoresheritability estimationUK BiobankPRS performanceconfiguration sensitivityGCTA-SBLUPLDpred2
0
0 comments X

The pith

SNP heritability estimates vary widely across methods but couple only weakly to polygenic risk score accuracy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests 86 different ways to estimate SNP heritability on ten UK Biobank traits and finds estimates that range from negative values to over 2. Each estimate is then fed into two standard PRS construction pipelines, GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2, and the resulting scores are evaluated for prediction accuracy. The key observation is that large swings in the heritability number produce almost no change in test-set AUC. This decoupling matters because it reframes heritability as a tunable modelling choice rather than a fixed biological constant that must be known precisely before building risk scores.

Core claim

SNP heritability is best interpreted as a configuration-sensitive modelling parameter rather than a universally stable scalar input. Across 844 estimates from 86 configurations, heritability ranged from -0.862 to 2.735, with 15.8 percent negative and concentrated in unconstrained regimes. Ten of eleven analytical contrasts significantly affected magnitude, yet pooled correlations between h² and PRS test AUC were near zero and non-significant for both GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2.

What carries the argument

The benchmarking pipeline that applies 86 heritability configurations spanning six tool families to ten phenotypes and propagates each resulting estimate into GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2 PRS frameworks for cross-validated evaluation.

If this is right

  • Heritability estimates should always be reported with their complete estimation specification.
  • Downstream PRS performance is comparatively robust to moderate variation in the heritability input.
  • Algorithm choice and GRM standardisation produce the largest shifts in heritability magnitude.
  • Negative heritability estimates occur frequently in unconstrained estimation regimes.
  • PRS test performance remains stable even when upstream h² inputs differ substantially.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • PRS pipelines may be more tolerant of noisy heritability inputs than previously assumed, shifting attention toward other tuning parameters.
  • The observed decoupling could be tested by measuring how much PRS accuracy changes when heritability is deliberately set to extreme values outside the estimated range.
  • If the pattern holds in independent datasets, routine reporting of heritability without method details may be less informative for clinical translation.
  • Future work could check whether the same weak coupling appears when heritability estimates are used for genetic correlation or variance-component analyses rather than PRS.

Load-bearing premise

That the weak coupling between heritability magnitude and PRS AUC observed for GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2 on these ten UK Biobank phenotypes generalizes to other PRS methods, phenotypes, and populations.

What would settle it

Repeating the full 86-configuration benchmark on a third PRS method or on non-European ancestry cohorts and observing a statistically significant Pearson correlation above 0.3 between h² and AUC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02394 by David B. Ascher, Muhammad Muneeb.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Heatmap of mean SNP heritability estimates across all 86 configurations and 10 phenotypes. Each row corresponds to one unique estimation configuration defined by the tool, model variant, clumping and pruning setting, and number of PCA components included; each column corresponds to one phenotype. Cell values represent the mean ℎ 2 averaged across five cross-validation folds for the training set. Grey cells… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of SNP heritability estimates across method families. Each box summarises the mean ℎ 2 values produced by one method family across all configurations and phenotypes. The central line is the median, box edges are the interquartile range, and whiskers extend to 1.5×IQR; individual points beyond the whiskers are shown. The dashed red line marks ℎ 2 = 0; estimates below this line reflect finite-sa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inter-method family correlation matrix for heritability estimates. Pairwise Pearson correlations between all six method families are shown, computed over mean ℎ 2 profiles across the ten phenotypes. Hierarchical clustering with average linkage and Euclidean distance was applied to the correlation values to produce the dendrogram. Cell values report the Pearson 𝑟; statistically significant pairs (𝑝 < 0.05) … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Objective: SNP heritability estimates vary substantially across estimation strategies, yet the downstream consequences for polygenic risk score (PRS) construction remain poorly characterised. We systematically benchmarked heritability estimation configurations and assessed their propagation into downstream PRS performance. Methods: We benchmarked 86 heritability-estimation configurations spanning six tool families (GEMMA, GCTA, LDAK, DPR, LDSC, and SumHer) and ten method groups across 10 UK Biobank phenotypes, yielding 844 configuration-level estimates. Each estimate was propagated into GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2 PRS frameworks and evaluated across five cross-validation folds using null, PRS-only, and full models. Eleven binary analytical contrasts were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests to identify drivers of heritability variability. Results: Heritability ranged from -0.862 to 2.735 (mean = 0.134, SD = 0.284), with 133 of 844 estimates (15.8%) being negative and concentrated in unconstrained estimation regimes. Ten of eleven analytical contrasts significantly affected heritability magnitude, with algorithm choice and GRM standardisation showing the largest effects. Despite this upstream variability, downstream PRS test performance was only weakly coupled to heritability magnitude: pooled Pearson correlations between h^2 and test AUC were r = -0.023 for GCTA-SBLUP and r = +0.014 for LDpred2-lassosum2, with both being non-significant. Conclusion: SNP heritability is best interpreted as a configuration-sensitive modelling parameter rather than a universally stable scalar input. Heritability estimates should always be reported alongside their full estimation specification, and downstream PRS performance is comparatively robust to moderate variation in the heritability input.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks 86 heritability-estimation configurations spanning six tool families (GEMMA, GCTA, LDAK, DPR, LDSC, SumHer) across 10 UK Biobank phenotypes, yielding 844 estimates. Each estimate is propagated into GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2 PRS frameworks and evaluated via five-fold cross-validation on null, PRS-only, and full models. Eleven analytical contrasts are tested with Mann-Whitney U tests. Results show heritability ranging from -0.862 to 2.735 (15.8% negative), with algorithm choice and GRM standardisation as major drivers, yet pooled Pearson correlations between h² and test AUC are near-zero and non-significant (r = -0.023 for GCTA-SBLUP; r = +0.014 for LDpred2-lassosum2). The conclusion states that SNP heritability is configuration-sensitive but downstream PRS performance is comparatively robust.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a large-scale empirical map of how estimation choices affect SNP heritability and demonstrates that, at least for the two tested PRS engines, this upstream variability does not materially degrade AUC. The scale (844 estimates, 11 contrasts with explicit statistical tests) and the concrete reporting of negative estimates and non-significant correlations are strengths that could inform reporting standards in genetic epidemiology.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract/Results] Abstract and Results: The claim that 'downstream PRS performance is comparatively robust' rests exclusively on GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2. Methods that treat h² as an explicit variance-component multiplier or shrinkage prior scale (e.g., PRS-CS, SBayesR, or LDpred2-auto variants) are not evaluated, so the near-zero correlations cannot be taken as general evidence of robustness across PRS frameworks.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported mean (0.134) and SD (0.284) of heritability estimates would be more informative if accompanied by the median and interquartile range, given the 15.8% negative values and wide range.
  2. [Methods/Results] Methods/Results: Full details on phenotype-specific data exclusions, exact cross-validation fold construction, and whether error bars accompany the AUC values are not visible in the provided summary; adding these would strengthen reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for this constructive comment on the scope of our PRS evaluations. We agree that the robustness claim requires qualification and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract/Results] Abstract and Results: The claim that 'downstream PRS performance is comparatively robust' rests exclusively on GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2. Methods that treat h² as an explicit variance-component multiplier or shrinkage prior scale (e.g., PRS-CS, SBayesR, or LDpred2-auto variants) are not evaluated, so the near-zero correlations cannot be taken as general evidence of robustness across PRS frameworks.

    Authors: We agree that the observed near-zero correlations between heritability estimates and PRS AUC are specific to the two PRS frameworks evaluated (GCTA-SBLUP and LDpred2-lassosum2). In the revised manuscript we will modify the abstract, results, and conclusion to explicitly state that downstream performance was comparatively robust within these two methods. We will also add a sentence in the discussion noting that PRS approaches which treat heritability as an explicit variance-component multiplier or shrinkage prior (e.g., PRS-CS, SBayesR, LDpred2-auto) were not tested and may exhibit greater sensitivity to upstream h² variability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical benchmarking with direct computation on external data

full rationale

The paper reports direct statistical computations of 844 heritability estimates from UK Biobank phenotypes using standard tools, followed by propagation into two PRS frameworks and Pearson correlations with AUC. No equations, ansatzes, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The central result (near-zero correlations) is a measured outcome on held-out folds, not a definitional identity or forced prediction. The study is self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study relies on standard assumptions embedded in the six heritability tools and on the representativeness of the 10 UK Biobank phenotypes for general heritability behavior.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 10 selected UK Biobank phenotypes are representative of typical heritability estimation behavior across human traits.
    The benchmark is performed exclusively on these phenotypes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5623 in / 1171 out tokens · 43294 ms · 2026-05-13T21:03:51.429304+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    International Journal of Epidemiology 53

    , 2024. International Journal of Epidemiology 53. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae039, doi:10.1093/ije/dyae039

    work page doi:10.1093/ije/dyae039 2024

  2. [2]

    Population structure can inflate snp-based heritability estimates

    Browning, S.R., Browning, B.L., 2011. Population structure can inflate snp-based heritability estimates. The American Journal of Human Genetics 89, 191–193. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.025, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.025 2011

  3. [3]

    Ld score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies

    Bulik-Sullivan, B., Finucane, H.K., Anttila, V., Gusev, A., Day, F.R., Loh, P.R., ReproGen, C., et al., 2015. Ld score regression distinguishes confounding from polygenicity in genome-wide association studies. Nature genetics 47, 291–295. doi:10.1038/ng.3211

    work page doi:10.1038/ng.3211 2015

  4. [4]

    Tutorial:aguidetoperformingpolygenicriskscoreanalyses

    Choi,S.W.,Mak,T.S.H.,O’Reilly,P.F.,2020. Tutorial:aguidetoperformingpolygenicriskscoreanalyses. NatureProtocols15,2759–2772. URL:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1, doi:10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1 2020

  5. [5]

    Statistical models and computational tools for predicting complex traits and diseases

    Chung, W., 2021. Statistical models and computational tools for predicting complex traits and diseases. Genomics and; Informatics 19, e36. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.5808/gi.21053, doi:10.5808/gi.21053

    work page doi:10.5808/gi.21053 2021

  6. [6]

    Calculating polygenic risk scores (PRS) in UK biobank: A practical guide for epidemiologists

    Collister, J.A., Liu, X., Clifton, L., 2022. Calculating polygenic risk scores (PRS) in UK biobank: A practical guide for epidemiologists. Frontiers in Genetics 13. URL:https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.818574, doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.818574

    work page doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.818574 2022

  7. [7]

    URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1267913, doi:10.2307/1267913

    Corbeil,R.R.,Searle,S.R.,1976.Restrictedmaximumlikelihood(reml)estimationofvariancecomponentsinthemixedmodel.Technometrics 18, 31. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1267913, doi:10.2307/1267913

    work page doi:10.2307/1267913 1976

  8. [8]

    Genome-wide analysis of 53, 400 people with irritable bowel syndrome highlights shared genetic pathways with mood and anxiety disorders

    Eijsbouts, C., Zheng, T., Kennedy, N.A., Bonfiglio, F., Anderson, C.A., Moutsianas, L., Holliday, J., Shi, J., Shringarpure, S., Agee, M., Aslibekyan, S., Auton, A., Bell, R.K., Bryc, K., Clark, S.K., Elson, S.L., Fletez-Brant, K., Fontanillas, P., Furlotte, N.A., Gandhi, P.M., Heilbron, K., Hicks, B., Hinds, D.A., Huber, K.E., Jewett, E.M., Jiang, Y., Kl...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00950-8 2021

  9. [9]

    Bayesian variable selection regression for genome-wide association studies and other large-scale problems URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6019, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1110.6019

    Guan, Y., Stephens, M., 2011. Bayesian variable selection regression for genome-wide association studies and other large-scale problems URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6019, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1110.6019

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1110.6019 2011

  10. [10]

    Many sequence variants affecting diversity of adult human height

    Gudbjartsson, D.F., Walters, G.B., Thorleifsson, G., Stefansson, H., Halldorsson, B.V., Zusmanovich, P., Sulem, P., Thorlacius, S., Gylfason, A., Steinberg, S., Helgadottir, A., Ingason, A., Steinthorsdottir, V., Olafsdottir, E.J., Olafsdottir, G.H., Jonsson, T., Borch-Johnsen, K., Hansen, T., Andersen, G., Jorgensen, T., Pedersen, O., Aben, K.K., Witjes,...

    work page doi:10.1038/ng.122 2008

  11. [11]

    Theimpactofnon-additivegeneticassociationsonage-relatedcomplexdiseases

    Guindo-Martínez, M., Amela, R., Bonàs-Guarch, S., Puiggròs, M., Salvoro, C., Miguel-Escalada, I., Carey, C.E., Cole, J.B., Rüeger, S., Atkinson,E.,Leong,A.,Sanchez,F.,Ramon-Cortes,C.,Ejarque,J.,Palmer,D.S.,Kurki,M.,Aragam,K.,Florez,J.C.,Badia,R.M.,Mercader, J.M.,Torrents,D.,2021. Theimpactofnon-additivegeneticassociationsonage-relatedcomplexdiseases. Natu...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21952-4 2021

  12. [12]

    Linearmixedmodelforheritabilityestimationthatexplicitlyaddressesenvironmentalvariation

    Heckerman, D., Gurdasani, D., Kadie, C., Pomilla, C., Carstensen, T., Martin, H., Ekoru, K., Nsubuga, R.N., Ssenyomo, G., Kamali, A., Kaleebu,P.,Widmer,C.,Sandhu,M.S.,2016. Linearmixedmodelforheritabilityestimationthatexplicitlyaddressesenvironmentalvariation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 7377–7382. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pn...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1510497113 2016

  13. [13]

    Howard, D.M., Adams, M.J., Shirali, M., Clarke, T.K., Marioni, R.E., Davies, G., Coleman, J.R.I., Alloza, C., Shen, X., Barbu, M.C., Wigmore, E.M., Gibson, J., Agee, M., Alipanahi, B., Auton, A., Bell, R.K., Bryc, K., Elson, S.L., Fontanillas, P., Furlotte, N.A., Hinds, D.A., Huber, K.E., Kleinman, A., Litterman, N.K., McCreight, J.C., McIntyre, M.H., Mou...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03819-3 2018

  14. [14]

    Incorporating family history of disease improves polygenic risk scores in diverse populations

    Hujoel, M.L., Loh, P.R., Neale, B.M., Price, A.L., 2022. Incorporating family history of disease improves polygenic risk scores in diverse populations. Cell Genomics 2, 100152. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100152, doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2022.10 0152

    work page doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100152 2022

  15. [15]

    A generalized linear mixed model association tool for biobank-scale data

    Jiang, L., Zheng, Z., Fang, H., Yang, J., 2021. A generalized linear mixed model association tool for biobank-scale data. Nature Genetics 53, 1616–1621. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00954-4, doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00954-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00954-4 2021

  16. [16]

    Estimating missing heritability for disease from genome-wide association studies

    Lee, S.H., Wray, N.R., Goddard, M.E., Visscher, P.M., 2011. Estimating missing heritability for disease from genome-wide association studies. The American Journal of Human Genetics 88, 294–305. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.02.002, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.02.002 2011

  17. [17]

    Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments

    Lewis, C.M., Vassos, E., 2020. Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments. Genome Medicine 12. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5, doi:10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5

    work page doi:10.1186/s13073-020-00742-5 2020

  18. [18]

    Młyńczak, M

    Li, H., Mazumder, R., Lin, X., 2023. Accurate and efficient estimation of local heritability using summary statistics and the linkage disequilibrium matrix. Nature Communications 14. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467- 023- 43565-9, doi:10.1038/ s41467-023-43565-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467- 2023

  19. [19]

    Method of moments

    Lindsay, B.G., 2005. Method of moments. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0470011815.b2a15089, doi:10.1002/0470011815 .b2a15089

    work page doi:10.1002/0470011815.b2a15089 2005

  20. [20]

    Mixed-model association for biobank-scale datasets

    Loh, P.R., Kichaev, G., Gazal, S., Schoech, A.P., Price, A.L., 2018. Mixed-model association for biobank-scale datasets. Nature Genetics 50, 906–908. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0144-6, doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0144-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0144-6 2018

  21. [21]

    Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases

    Manolio,T.A.,Collins,F.S.,Cox,N.J.,Goldstein,D.B.,Hindorff,L.A.,Hunter,D.J.,McCarthy,M.I.,Ramos,E.M.,Cardon,L.R.,Chakravarti, A., Cho, J.H., Guttmacher, A.E., Kong, A., Kruglyak, L., Mardis, E., Rotimi, C.N., Slatkin, M., Valle, D., Whittemore, A.S., Boehnke, M., Clark, A.G., Eichler, E.E., Gibson, G., Haines, J.L., Mackay, T.F.C., McCarroll, S.A., Vissch...

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08494 2009

  22. [22]

    Maximumlikelihoodestimationofmodelsforresidualcovarianceinspatialregression

    MARDIA,K.V.,MARSHALL,R.J.,1984. Maximumlikelihoodestimationofmodelsforresidualcovarianceinspatialregression. Biometrika 71, 135–146. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/71.1.135, doi:10.1093/biomet/71.1.135

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/71.1.135 1984

  23. [23]

    Assessingtheheritabilityofcomplextraitsinhumans:Methodologicalchallengesandopportunities

    Mayhew,A.J.,Meyre,D.,2017. Assessingtheheritabilityofcomplextraitsinhumans:Methodologicalchallengesandopportunities. Current Genomics 18. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1389202918666170307161450, doi:10.2174/1389202918666170307161450

    work page doi:10.2174/1389202918666170307161450 2017

  24. [24]

    Novel genetic loci associated with osteoarthritis in multi-ancestry analyses in the million veteran program and uk biobank

    McDonald, M.L.N., Lakshman Kumar, P., Srinivasasainagendra, V., Nair, A., Rocco, A.P., Wilson, A.C., Chiles, J.W., Richman, J.S., Pinson, S.A., Dennis, R.A., Jagadale, V., Brown, C.J., Pyarajan, S., Tiwari, H.K., Bamman, M.M., Singh, J.A., 2022. Novel genetic loci associated with osteoarthritis in multi-ancestry analyses in the million veteran program and...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-022-01221-w 2022

  25. [25]

    Muneeb, M., Feng, S., Henschel, A., 2022a. An empirical comparison between polygenic risk scores and machine learning for case/control classification URL:https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298372/v1, doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298372/v1

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1298372/v1

  26. [26]

    Muneeb, M., Feng, S.F., Henschel, A., 2022b. Heritability, genetic variation, and the number of risk snps effect on deep learning and polygenic risk scores auc, in: 2022 14th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Technology, ACM. URL:http: //dx.doi.org/10.1145/3543377.3543387, doi:10.1145/3543377.3543387

    work page doi:10.1145/3543377.3543387 2022

  27. [27]

    A bayesian mixed modeling approach for estimating heritability

    Nustad, H.E., Page, C.M., Reiner, A.H., Zucknick, M., LeBlanc, M., 2018. A bayesian mixed modeling approach for estimating heritability. BMC Proc. 12, 31

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Ldpred2: better, faster, stronger

    Privé, F., Arbel, J., Vilhjálmsson, B.J., 2020. Ldpred2: better, faster, stronger. Bioinformatics 36, 5424–5431. URL:http://dx.doi.org /10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1029, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1029

    work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1029 2020

  29. [29]

    A cross-population atlas of genetic associations for 220 human phenotypes

    Sakaue, S., Kanai, M., Tanigawa, Y., Karjalainen, J., Kurki, M., Koshiba, S., Narita, A., Konuma, T., Yamamoto, K., Akiyama, M., Ishigaki, K., Suzuki, A., Suzuki, K., Obara, W., Yamaji, K., Takahashi, K., Asai, S., Takahashi, Y., Suzuki, T., Shinozaki, N., Yamaguchi, H., Minami, S., Murayama, S., Yoshimori, K., Nagayama, S., Obata, D., Higashiyama, M., Ma...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00931-x 2021

  30. [30]

    Sumher better estimates the snp heritability of complex traits from summary statistics

    Speed, D., Balding, D.J., 2018. Sumher better estimates the snp heritability of complex traits from summary statistics. Nature Genetics 51, 277–284. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0279-5, doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0279-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0279-5 2018

  31. [31]

    Evaluating and improving heritability models using summary statistics

    Speed, D., Holmes, J., Balding, D.J., 2020. Evaluating and improving heritability models using summary statistics. Nature Genetics 52, 458–462. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0600-y, doi:10.1038/s41588-020-0600-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-020-0600-y 2020

  32. [32]

    Heritabilityestimationapproachesutilizinggenome-widedata

    Srivastava,A.K.,Williams,S.M.,Zhang,G.,2023. Heritabilityestimationapproachesutilizinggenome-widedata. CurrentProtocols3. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpz1.734, doi:10.1002/cpz1.734

    work page doi:10.1002/cpz1.734 2023

  33. [33]

    Heritability estimation and differential analysis of count data with generalized linear mixed models in genomic sequencing studies

    Sun, S., Zhu, J., Mozaffari, S., Ober, C., Chen, M., Zhou, X., 2019. Heritability estimation and differential analysis of count data with generalized linear mixed models in genomic sequencing studies. Bioinformatics 35, 487–496

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Common snps explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height

    Yang, J., Benyamin, B., McEvoy, B.P., Gordon, S., Henders, A.K., Nyholt, D.R., Madden, P.A., Heath, A.C., Martin, N.G., Montgomery, G.W., Goddard, M.E., Visscher, P.M., 2010. Common snps explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nature Genetics 42, 565–569. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.608, doi:10.1038/ng.608

    work page doi:10.1038/ng.608 2010

  35. [35]

    Gcta: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis

    Yang, J., Lee, S.H., Goddard, M.E., Visscher, P.M., 2011. Gcta: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. The American Journal of Human Genetics doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.11.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.11.011 2011

  36. [36]

    Gcta-gremlaccountsforlinkagedisequilibriumwhenestimatinggenetic variance from genome-wide snps

    Yang,J.,Lee,S.H.,Wray,N.R.,Goddard,M.E.,Visscher,P.M.,2016. Gcta-gremlaccountsforlinkagedisequilibriumwhenestimatinggenetic variance from genome-wide snps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.16 02743113, doi:10.1073/pnas.1602743113. Muneeb and Ascher:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 20 of 21 Benchmark...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.16 2016

  37. [37]

    Non-parametric genetic prediction of complex traits with latent dirichlet process regression models

    Zeng, P., Zhou, X., 2017. Non-parametric genetic prediction of complex traits with latent dirichlet process regression models. Nature Communications 8. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00470-2, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00470-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00470-2 2017

  38. [38]

    Polygenic modeling with bayesian sparse linear mixed models

    Zhou, X., Carbonetto, P., Stephens, M., 2013. Polygenic modeling with bayesian sparse linear mixed models. PLoS Genetics 9, e1003264. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003264, doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003264

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003264 2013

  39. [39]

    Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies

    Zhou, X., Stephens, M., 2012. Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies. Nature genetics 44, 821–824. doi:10.1038/ng.2310

    work page doi:10.1038/ng.2310 2012

  40. [40]

    Statistical methods for snp heritability estimation and partition: A review

    Zhu, H., Zhou, X., 2020. Statistical methods for snp heritability estimation and partition: A review. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 18, 1557–1568. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037020303007, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2020.06.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2020.06.011 2020

  41. [41]

    Themysteryofmissingheritability:Geneticinteractionscreatephantomheritability

    Zuk,O.,Hechter,E.,Sunyaev,S.R.,Lander,E.S.,2012. Themysteryofmissingheritability:Geneticinteractionscreatephantomheritability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 1193–1198. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1119675109, doi:10.1073/pnas.1119675109. Muneeb and Ascher:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 21 of 21

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1119675109 2012