Evaluation of computational methods for the reconstruction of HLA haplotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes are frequently evaluated for population history inferences and association studies. However, the available typing techniques for the main HLA loci usually do not allow the determination of the allele phase and the constitution of a haplotype, which may be obtained by a very time-consuming and expensive family-based segregation study. Without the family-based study, computational inference by probabilistic models is necessary to obtain haplotypes. Several authors have used the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to determine HLA haplotypes, but high levels of erroneous inferences are expected because of the genetic distance among the main HLA loci and the presence of several recombination hotspots. In order to evaluate the efficiency of computational inference methods, 763 unrelated individuals stratified into three different datasets had their haplotypes manually defined in a family-based study of HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 segregation, and these haplotypes were compared with the data obtained by the following three methods: the Expectation-Maximization (EM) and Excoffier-Laval-Balding (ELB) algorithms using the arlequin 3.11 software, and the PHASE method. When comparing the methods, we observed that all algorithms showed a poor performance for haplotype reconstruction with distant loci, estimating incorrect haplotypes for 38%-57% of the samples considering all algorithms and datasets. We suggest that computational haplotype inferences involving low-resolution HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DQB1 haplotypes should be considered with caution.
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 | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, 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".