Authors
Zheng Han, Hongcheng Zhu, Changzai Li
Published in
Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology. Volume 24. Issue 3. Pages 2671003. Epub Jun 12, 2026.
Abstract
Some post-GWAS analysis software can run to completion without reporting an error while producing results that are not biologically valid. We call this failure false locality: a result appears to be local to a gene or protein because it was produced from a regional window, but the window or its metadata points to the wrong genomic address. We identify three mechanisms. First, a genome-build address mismatch occurs when GRCh38 protein-QTL coordinates are used with GRCh37 outcome files; in our 91-sentinel audit, 66 coordinates moved by more than 100[Formula: see text]kb and 54 moved by more than 200[Formula: see text]kb after remapping. Second, non-specific regional noise occurs when significant P values persist after the analysis window is deliberately moved to a zero-overlap variant set. Third, location-label blindness occurs when software returns the same output after the declared coordinate label is changed while the SNP table is unchanged; in an official SMR/HEIDI CXCL10 test, the top SNP, SMR P value, and HEIDI P value remained identical across correct, wrong, and shifted labels. We propose a simple Change Test: a result should not be treated as local evidence unless the numerical output changes, weakens, or disappears when the analysis window or coordinate label is intentionally moved to a biologically wrong location. This standard turns software execution from a passive success signal into an explicit spatial-specificity check.
PMID:
42324819
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 22 Jun 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 1
- Comments 0