Sequencing and imputation in GWAS: Cost‐effective strategies to increase power and genomic coverage across diverse populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 capture the full spectrum of genetic variation, but remains prohibitively expensive for large samples. Array genotyping interrogates a sparser set of variants, which can be used as a scaffold for genotype imputation to capture variation across a wider set of variants. However, imputation coverage and accuracy depend crucially on the reference panel size and genetic distance from the target population. Here, we consider a strategy in which a subset of study participants is sequenced and the rest array-genotyped and imputed using a reference panel that comprises the sequenced study participants and individuals from an external reference panel. We systematically assess how imputation quality and statistical power for association depend on the number of individuals sequenced and included in the reference panel for two admixed populations (African and Latino Americans) and two European population isolates (Sardinians and Finns). We develop a framework to identify powerful and cost-effective GWAS designs in these populations given current sequencing and array genotyping costs. For populations that are well-represented in current reference panels, we find that array genotyping alone is cost-effective and well-powered to detect both common- and rare-variant associations. For poorly represented populations, we find that sequencing a subset of study participants to improve imputation is often more cost-effective than array genotyping alone, and can substantially increase genomic coverage and 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.
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 | 0.066 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".