Value of Mendelian Laws of Segregation in Families: Data Quality Control, Imputation, and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When analyzing family data, we dream of perfectly informative data, even whole-genome sequences (WGSs) for all family members. Reality intervenes, and we find that next-generation sequencing (NGS) data have errors and are often too expensive or impossible to collect on everyone. The Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 working groups on quality control and dropping WGSs through families using a genome-wide association framework focused on finding, correcting, and using errors within the available sequence and family data, developing methods to infer and analyze missing sequence data among relatives, and testing for linkage and association with simulated blood pressure. We found that single-nucleotide polymorphisms, NGS data, and imputed data are generally concordant but that errors are particularly likely at rare variants, for homozygous genotypes, within regions with repeated sequences or structural variants, and within sequence data imputed from unrelated individuals. Admixture complicated identification of cryptic relatedness, but information from Mendelian transmission improved error detection and provided an estimate of the de novo mutation rate. Computationally, fast rule-based imputation was accurate but could not cover as many loci or subjects as more computationally demanding probability-based methods. Incorporating population-level data into pedigree-based imputation methods improved results. Observed data outperformed imputed data in association testing, but imputed data were also useful. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing methods and suggest possible future directions, such as improving communication between data collectors and data analysts, establishing thresholds for and improving imputation quality, and incorporating error into imputation and analytical models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.333 | 0.589 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".