North African Influences and Potential Bias in Case-Control Association Studies in the Spanish Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the limited genetic heterogeneity of Spanish populations, substantial evidences support that historical African influences have not affected them uniformly. Accounting for such population differences might be essential to reduce spurious results in association studies of genetic factors with disease. Using ancestry informative markers (AIMs), we aimed to measure the African influences in Spanish populations and to explore whether these might introduce statistical bias in population-based association studies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We genotyped 93 AIMs in Spanish (from the Canary Islands and the Iberian Peninsula) and Northwest Africans, and conducted population and individual-based clustering analyses along with reference data from the HapMap, HGDP-CEPH, and other sources. We found significant differences for the Northwest African influence among Spanish populations from as low as ≈ 5% in Spanish from the Iberian Peninsula to as much as ≈ 17% in Canary Islanders, whereas the sub-Saharan African influence was negligible. Strikingly, the Northwest African ancestry showed a wide inter-individual variation in Canary Islanders ranging from 0% to 96%, reflecting the violent way the Islands were conquered and colonized by the Spanish in the XV century. As a consequence, a comparison of allele frequencies between Spanish samples from the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands evidenced an excess of markers with significant differences. However, the inflation of p-values for the differences was adequately controlled by correcting for genetic ancestry estimates derived from a reduced number of AIMs. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Although the African influences estimated might be biased due to marker ascertainment, these results confirm that Northwest African genetic footprints are recognizable nowadays in the Spanish populations, particularly in Canary Islanders, and that the uneven African influences existing in these populations might increase the risk for false positives in association studies. Adjusting for population stratification assessed with a few dozen AIMs would be sufficient to control this effect.
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 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 | 0.106 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".