Comparison of Multiple Imputation Algorithms and Verification Using Whole-Genome Sequencing in the CMUH Genetic Biobank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A genome-wide association study (GWAS) can be conducted to systematically analyze the contributions of genetic factors to a wide variety of complex diseases. Nevertheless, existing GWASs have provided highly ethnic specific data. Accordingly, to provide data specific to Taiwan, we established a large-scale genetic database in a single medical institution at the China Medical University Hospital. With current technological limitations, microarray analysis can detect only a limited number of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with a minor allele frequency of >1%. Nevertheless, imputation represents a useful alternative means of expanding data. In this study, we compared four imputation algorithms in terms of various metrics. We observed that among the compared algorithms, Beagle5.2 achieved the fastest calculation speed, smallest storage space, highest specificity, and highest number of high-quality variants. We obtained 15,277,414 high-quality variants in 175,871 people by using Beagle5.2. In our internal verification process, Beagle5.2 exhibited an accuracy rate of up to 98.75%. We also conducted external verification. Our imputed variants had a 79.91% mapping rate and 90.41% accuracy. These results will be combined with clinical data in future research. We have made the results available for researchers to use in formulating imputation algorithms, in addition to establishing a complete SNP database for GWAS and PRS researchers. We believe that these data can help improve overall medical capabilities, particularly precision medicine, in Taiwan.
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 | 0.036 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".