Accuracy of genotype imputation in Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dog is a valuable model species for the genetic analysis of complex traits, and the use of genotype imputation in dogs will be an important tool for future studies. It is of particular interest to analyse the effect of factors like single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) density of genotyping arrays and relatedness between dogs on imputation accuracy due to the acknowledged genetic and pedigree structure of dog breeds. In this study, we simulated different genotyping strategies based on data from 1179 Labrador Retriever dogs. The study involved 5826 SNPs on chromosome 1 representing the high density (HighD) array; the low-density (LowD) array was simulated by masking different proportions of SNPs on the HighD array. The correlations between true and imputed genotypes for a realistic masking level of 87.5% ranged from 0.92 to 0.97, depending on the scenario used. A correlation of 0.92 was found for a likely scenario (10% of dogs genotyped using HighD, 87.5% of HighD SNPs masked in the LowD array), which indicates that genotype imputation in Labrador Retrievers can be a valuable tool to reduce experimental costs while increasing sample size. Furthermore, we show that genotype imputation can be performed successfully even without pedigree information and with low relatedness between dogs in the reference and validation sets. Based on these results, the impact of genotype imputation was evaluated in a genome-wide association analysis and genomic prediction in Labrador Retrievers.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".