2016
DOI: 10.5808/gi.2016.14.4.173
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Two Meta-Analysis Methods: Inverse-Variance-Weighted Average and Weighted Sum of Z-Scores

Abstract: The meta-analysis has become a widely used tool for many applications in bioinformatics, including genome-wide association studies. A commonly used approach for meta-analysis is the fixed effects model approach, for which there are two popular methods: the inverse variance-weighted average method and weighted sum of z-scores method. Although previous studies have shown that the two methods perform similarly, their characteristics and their relationship have not been thoroughly investigated. In this paper, we i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
142
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 208 publications
(142 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
142
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We extracted P values, estimated SNP effects and standard errors at each scanning locus. We considered two popular metaanalysis approaches: the inverse variance-weighted average and the weighted sum of z-scores [75][76][77] . For weighted sum of z-scores, we tried two weighing schemes, i.e., the sample size and squared root of the sample size, and found the results were very similar, and were slightly better than that of the inverse variance-weighted average.…”
Section: Meta-analysis In the Lgsm Ail Micementioning
confidence: 99%
“…We extracted P values, estimated SNP effects and standard errors at each scanning locus. We considered two popular metaanalysis approaches: the inverse variance-weighted average and the weighted sum of z-scores [75][76][77] . For weighted sum of z-scores, we tried two weighing schemes, i.e., the sample size and squared root of the sample size, and found the results were very similar, and were slightly better than that of the inverse variance-weighted average.…”
Section: Meta-analysis In the Lgsm Ail Micementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inverse-variance-weighted effect-size method ( Cochran, 1954 ; de Bakker et al , 2008 ; Fleiss, 1993 ; Mantel and Haenszel, 1959 ) and the weighted sum-of-z-scores method ( de Bakker et al , 2008 ; Han and Eskin, 2011 ; Zaykin, 2011 ) are used widely. We only describe the former, because the two methods are approximately equivalent ( Lee et al , 2016 ). Let be the effect-size estimates, such as log odds ratios or regression coefficients, in independent studies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inverse-variance-weighted effect-size estimator is the sum of weighted with weights : The variance of is It follows that the standard error of is . Note that is minimized only if the weights are inverse variances, which explains the method’s name ( Cochran, 1954 ; Greene, 2012 ; Lee et al , 2016 ). We can then build a summary z-score, which follows under the null hypothesis of no association 0 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So that the joint likelihood, as factorized in Eq 48, is simply . As shown previously [Lee et al, 2016], maximizing the approximate joint likelihood is equivalent to inverse-variance meta-analysis, which takes the form …”
Section: Qtl Mapping Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%