Sequencing and imputation in GWAS: Cost‐effective strategies to increase power and genomic coverage across diverse populations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key aim for current genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is to interrogate the full spectrum of genetic variation underlying human traits, including rare variants, across populations. Deep whole-genome sequencing is the gold standard to fully capture genetic variation, but remains prohibitively expensive for large sample sizes. Array genotyping interrogates a sparser set of variants, which can be used as a scaffold for genotype imputation to capture a wider set of variants. However, imputation quality depends crucially on reference panel size and genetic distance from the target population. Here, we consider sequencing a subset of GWAS participants and imputing the rest using a reference panel that includes both sequenced GWAS participants and an external reference panel. We investigate how imputation quality and GWAS power are affected by the number of participants sequenced for admixed populations (African and Latino Americans) and European population isolates (Sardinians and Finns), and identify powerful, cost-effective GWAS designs given current sequencing and array costs. For populations that are well-represented in existing reference panels, we find that array genotyping alone is cost-effective and well-powered to detect common- and rare-variant associations. For poorly represented populations, sequencing a subset of participants is often most cost-effective, and can substantially increase imputation quality and GWAS power.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it