Accuracy of imputation of single nucleotide polymorphism marker genotypes from low‐density panels in <scp>J</scp>apanese <scp>B</scp>lack cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using target and reference fattened steer populations, the performance of genotype imputation using lower-density marker panels in Japanese Black cattle was evaluated. Population imputation was performed using BEAGLE software. Genotype information for approximately 40,000 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers by Illumina BovineSNP50 BeadChip was available, and imputation accuracy was assessed based on the average concordance rates of the genotypes, varying equally spaced SNP densities, and the number of individuals in the reference population. Two additional statistics were also calculated as indicators of imputation performance. The concordance rates tended to be lower for SNPs with greater minor allele frequencies, or those located near the ends of the chromosomes. Longer autosomes yielded greater imputation accuracies than shorter ones. When SNPs were selected based on linkage disequilibrium information, relative imputation accuracy was slightly improved. When 3000 and 10,000 equally spaced SNPs were used, the imputation accuracies were greater than 90% and approximately 97%, respectively. These results indicate that combining genotyping using a lower-density SNP chip with genotype imputation based on a population of individuals genotyped using a higher-density SNP chip is a cost-effective and valid approach for genomic prediction.
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
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".