Hi Joni,
N=Cases+Controls is the desired value (though you can equivalently specify in terms of Neff, as shown below).
The differential power reflected by Neff actually gets captured by the ascertainment term of the observed/liability scale transformation. If we call the sampling proportion pi, then we can rearrange Neff as:
Neff = 4/[(1/pi*N)+1/((1-pi)*N)]
= 4/[(1/pi*N)+1/((1-pi)*N)]
= 4/[(1-pi)/(pi*(1-pi)*N)+pi/(pi*(1-pi)*N)]
= 4/[1/pi*(1-pi)*N]
= 4*pi*(1-pi)*N
For LDSC, the primary term of interest is N*h2/M, where that h2 is observed scale. Substituting for liability scale h2 gives:
N*[z^2/K(1-K)]*[P(1-P)/K(1-K)]*h2_liab/M
The N*P*(1-P) is the key factor here. For N=Cases+Controls, then P=pi, giving:
N*P*(1-P) = pi*(1-pi)*N
For Neff the important observation is that we’ve defined an N that now corresponds to P=.5. So in terms of Neff we get:
P*(1-P)*Neff = .5*(1-.5)*4*pi*(1-pi)*N = pi*(1-pi)*N
So using N=Cases+Controls and the appropriate --samp-prev should be equivalent to using Neff with --samp-prev 0.5. (In practice they may not be literally identical when case/control balance varies by SNP, but I expect the difference should be minor.)
Cheers,
Raymond