MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4211136236 · doi:10.1101/2022.02.11.479970

Allele Dispersion Score: Quantifying the range of allele frequencies across populations, based on UMAP

2022· preprint· en· W4211136236 on OpenAlexafffund
Solenne Correard, Laura Arbour, Wyeth W. Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome Canada
Keywords1000 Genomes ProjectAllele frequencyPopulationBiologyAlleleGenomicsHuman genomeGeneticsPopulation genomicsGenome-wide association studyEvolutionary biologyGenomeComputational biologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeDemographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genomic variation plays a crucial role in biology, serving as a base for evolution - allowing for adaptation on a species or population level. At the individual level, however, specific alleles can be implicated in diseases. To interpret genetic variants identified in an individual potentially affected with a rare genetic disease, it is fundamental to know the population frequency of each allele, ideally in an ancestry matched cohort. Equity in human genomics remains a challenge for the field, and there are not yet cohorts representing most populations. Currently, when ancestry matched cohorts are not available, pooled variant libraries are used, such as gnomAD, the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) or the 1,000 Genomes Project (now known as IGSR: International Genome Sample Resource). When working with a pooled collection of variant frequencies, one of the challenges is to determine efficiently if a variant is broadly spread across populations or appears selectively in one or more populations. While this can be accomplished by reviewing tables of population frequencies, it can be advantageous to have a single score that summarizes the observed dispersion. This score would not require classifying individuals into populations, which can be complicated if it is a homogenous population, or can leave individuals excluded from all the predefined population groups. Moreover, a score would not display fine-scaled population information, which could have privacy implications and consequently be inappropriate to release. Therefore, we sought to develop a scoring method based on a Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) where, for each allele, the score can range from 0 (the variant is limited to a subset of close individuals within the whole cohort) to 1 (the variant is spread among the individuals represented in the cohort). We call this score the Allele Dispersion Score (ADS). The scoring system was implemented on the IGSR dataset, and compared to the current method consisting in displaying variant frequencies for several populations in a table. The ADS correlates with the population frequencies, without requiring grouping of individuals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→