Theory of the Effects of Population Structure and Sampling on Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium Applied to Genomic Data From Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop predictions for the correlation of heterozygosity and for linkage disequilibrium between two loci using a simple model of population structure that includes migration among local populations, or demes. We compare the results for a sample of size two from the same deme (a single-deme sample) to those for a sample of size two from two different demes (a scattered sample). The correlation in heterozygosity for a scattered sample is surprisingly insensitive to both the migration rate and the number of demes. In contrast, the correlation in heterozygosity for a single-deme sample is sensitive to both, and the effect of an increase in the number of demes is qualitatively similar to that of a decrease in the migration rate: both increase the correlation in heterozygosity. These same conclusions hold for a commonly used measure of linkage disequilibrium (r(2)). We compare the predictions of the theory to genomic data from humans and show that subdivision might account for a substantial portion of the genetic associations observed within the human genome, even though migration rates among local populations of humans are relatively large. Because correlations due to subdivision rather than to physical linkage can be large even in a single-deme sample, then if long-term migration has been important in shaping patterns of human polymorphism, the common practice of disease mapping using linkage disequilibrium in "isolated" local populations may be subject to error.
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 | 0.042 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".