Outcome Data

AN Alastair J. Noyce
SB Sara Bandres‐Ciga
JK Jonggeol Kim
KH Karl Heilbron
DK Demis Kia
GH Gibran Hemani
AX Angli Xue
DL Debbie A. Lawlor
GS George Davey Smith
RD Raquel Duran
ZG Ziv Gan‐Or
CB Cornelis Blauwendraat
JG J. Raphael Gibbs
DH David A. Hinds
JY Jian Yang
PV Peter Visscher
JC Jack Cuzick
HM Huw Morris
JH John Hardy
NW Nicholas W. Wood
MN Mike A. Nalls
AS Andrew B. Singleton
ask Ask a question
Favorite

Summary statistics from the largest, published PD GWAS meta‐analysis involving 26,035 PD cases and 403,190 controls of European ancestry were used as the outcome data for the primary analysis. Recruitment and genotyping quality‐control procedures were described in the original report.11

A newer PD GWAS included a total of 37,688 cases, 1,417,791 controls, and 18,618 “proxy cases” from the UKB (individuals that reported having a parent with PD).2 However, there was substantial overlap in control subjects between each of the UKB exposures and the Nalls and colleagues 2019 meta‐analysis, which can, in turn, lead to bias in causal effect estimates. For this reason, we repeated the analyses using only 5,851 clinically diagnosed PD cases and 5,866 matched controls as the outcome, after excluding UKB samples and self‐reported PD cases and controls. Finally, we used an earlier PD GWAS as the outcome that included 13,708 cases and 95,282 controls.12

Do you have any questions about this protocol?

Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.

post Post a Question
0 Q&A