>"The p-value appears to be 10^-5 and they ran a replication data set as well. Many GWASs report much less stringent p-value and many don't run sub-replications

>"The p-value appears to be 10^-5 and they ran a replication data set as well. Many GWASs report much less stringent p-value and many don't run sub-replications." The p-value really should be totally irrelevant to your assessment, unless you believe the null model they used is literally true. I didn't check the paper, so maybe this is one of those rare times. However, in general I've seen that everything is correlated with everything.