Genotype imputation accuracy and the quality metrics of the minor ancestry in multi-ancestry reference panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large-scale imputation reference panels are now available and have contributed to efficient genome-wide association studies through genotype imputation. However, it is still under debate whether large-size multi-ancestry or small-size population-specific reference panels are the optimal choices for under-represented populations. We imputed genotypes of East Asian (EAS; 180k Japanese) subjects using the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) reference panel and found that the standard imputation quality metric (Rsq) substantially overestimated the dosage r 2 (squared correlation between imputed dosage and true genotype). Variance component analysis of Rsq revealed that the increased imputed-genotype certainty (dosages closer to 0, 1, or 2) caused upward bias, indicating some systemic bias in the imputation. Through systematic simulations using different template switching rates (θ value) in the hidden Markov model, we uncovered that the lower θ value increased the imputed-genotype certainty and Rsq; however, dosage r 2 was insensitive to the θ value, thereby causing a deviation. In simulated reference panels with different sizes and ancestral diversities, the θ value estimates from Minimac decreased with the size of a single ancestry and increased with the ancestral diversity. Thus, Rsq could overestimate or underestimate dosage r 2 for a subpopulation in the multi-ancestry panel and the deviation represents different imputed-dosage distributions. Finally, despite the impact of θ value, distant ancestries in the reference panel contributed only a few additional variants passing a predefined Rsq threshold. We conclude that the θ value has a substantial impact on the imputed dosage and the imputation quality metric value.
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 | 0.037 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".