MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970357378 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msz201

Legacy Data Confound Genomics Studies

2019· review· en· W2970357378 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Anderson-Trocmé, Rick Farouni, Mathieu Bourgey, Koichiro Higasa, Jeong‐Sun Seo, Changhoon Kim, Fumihiko Matsuda, Simon Gravel

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPopulation stratificationImputation (statistics)Spurious relationship1000 Genomes ProjectGenomicsGenome-wide association studyPopulationData qualityComputational biologyGenomeGeneticsEvolutionary biologyMissing dataComputer scienceDemographySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent reports have identified differences in the mutational spectra across human populations. Although some of these reports have been replicated in other cohorts, most have been reported only in the 1000 Genomes Project (1kGP) data. While investigating an intriguing putative population stratification within the Japanese population, we identified a previously unreported batch effect leading to spurious mutation calls in the 1kGP data and to the apparent population stratification. Because the 1kGP data are used extensively, we find that the batch effects also lead to incorrect imputation by leading imputation servers and a small number of suspicious GWAS associations. Lower quality data from the early phases of the 1kGP thus continue to contaminate modern studies in hidden ways. It may be time to retire or upgrade such legacy sequencing data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207