> There are 3 datasets here... Yes, understood. Part of the reason I dug up the actual paper was so that others could see it, as the news source linked didn't

> There are 3 datasets here... Yes, understood. Part of the reason I dug up the actual paper was so that others could see it, as the news source linked didn't go into much detail. I didn't read the entire paper, and appreciate the additional explanation here. I'm sure it's helpful for others as a condensed summary as well. > > Many GWASs report much less stringent p-value and many don't run sub-replications. > This isn't true. What is not true? Do all GWAS studies do similar holdout replications and compare to other results? No. Have all GWAS studies over time always adjusted appropriately for multiple testing and held to a high significance standard? No. That is a more recent development and set of standards in the field over the past few years. I didn't make an outrageous claim; I simply noted that many GWASs have used much lower significance thresholds (especially in the past) and many don't do thorough holdout replications nor replicate in other ways. > Most GWASes use the standard genome-wide significance level of 10-8. Indeed. I see that you are aware of this push in the field for greater degrees of significance and that this is now fairly standardized... yet in another comment you appear to be debating me when I stated that this has been the case.