A combined reference panel from the 1000 Genomes and UK10K projects improved rare variant imputation in European and Chinese samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imputation using the 1000 Genomes haplotype reference panel has been widely adapted to estimate genotypes in genome wide association studies. To evaluate imputation quality with a relatively larger reference panel and a reference panel composed of different ethnic populations, we conducted imputations in the Framingham Heart Study and the North Chinese Study using a combined reference panel from the 1000 Genomes (N = 1,092) and UK10K (N = 3,781) projects. For rare variants with 0.01% < MAF ≤ 0.5%, imputation in the Framingham Heart Study with the combined reference panel increased well-imputed genotypes (with imputation quality score ≥0.4) from 62.9% to 76.1% when compared to imputation with the 1000 Genomes. For the North Chinese samples, imputation of rare variants with 0.01% < MAF ≤ 0.5% with the combined reference panel increased well-imputed genotypes by from 49.8% to 61.8%. The predominant European ancestry of the UK10K and the combined reference panels may explain why there was less of an increase in imputation success in the North Chinese samples. Our results underscore the importance and potential of larger reference panels to impute rare variants, while recognizing that increasing ethnic specific variants in reference panels may result in better imputation for genotypes in some ethnic groups.
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 | 0.032 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".