Genotype imputation and reference panel: a systematic evaluation on haplotype size and diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, 622 imputations were conducted with 394 customized reference panels for Han Chinese and European populations. Besides validating the fact that imputation accuracy could always benefit from the increased panel size when the reference panel was population specific, the results brought two new thoughts. First, when the haplotype size of the reference panel was fixed, the imputation accuracy of common and low-frequency variants (Minor Allele Frequency (MAF) > 0.5%) decreased while the population diversity of the reference panel increased, but for rare variants (MAF < 0.5%), a small fraction of diversity in panel could improve imputation accuracy. Second, when the haplotype size of the reference panel was increased with extra population-diverse samples, the imputation accuracy of common variants (MAF > 5%) for the European population could always benefit from the expanding sample size. However, for the Han Chinese population, the accuracy of all imputed variants reached the highest when reference panel contained a fraction of an extra diverse sample (8-21%). In addition, we evaluated the imputation performances in the existing reference panels, such as the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC), 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 and the China, Oxford and Virginia Commonwealth University Experimental Research on Genetic Epidemiology (CONVERGE). For the European population, the HRC panel showed the best performance in our analysis. For the Han Chinese population, we proposed an optimum imputation reference panel constituent ratio if researchers would like to customize their own sequenced reference panel, but a high-quality and large-scale Chinese reference panel was still needed. Our findings could be generalized to the other populations with conservative genome; a tool was provided to investigate other populations of interest (https://github.com/Abyss-bai/reference-panel-reconstruction).
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 | 0.119 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".