Pharmacogenomic allele coverage of genome-wide genotyping arrays: a comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of genome-wide genotyping arrays in pharmacogenomics (PGx) research and clinical implementation applications is increasing but it is unclear which arrays are best suited for these applications. Here, we conduct a comparative coverage analysis of PGx alleles included on genome-wide genotyping arrays, with an emphasis on alleles in genes with PGx-based prescribing guidelines. Genomic manifest files for seven arrays including the Axiom Precision Medicine Diversity Array (PMDA), Axiom PMDA Plus, Axiom PangenomiX, Axiom PangenomiX Plus, Infinium Global Screening Array, Infinium Global Diversity Array (GDA) and Infinium GDA with enhanced PGx (GDA-PGx) Array, were evaluated for coverage of 523 star alleles across 19 pharmacogenes included in prescribing guidelines developed by the Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium and Dutch Pharmacogenomics Working Group. Specific attention was given to coverage of the Association of Molecular Pathology's Tier 1 and Tier 2 allele sets for CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, NUDT15, TPMT and VKORC1 . Coverage of the examined PGx alleles was highest for the Infinium GDA-PGx (88%), Axiom PangenomiX Plus (77%), Axiom PangenomiX (72%) and Axiom PMDA Plus (70%). Three arrays (Infinium GDA-PGx, Axiom PangenomiX Plus and Axiom PMDA Plus) fully covered the Tier 1 alleles and the Axiom PangenomiX array provided full coverage of Tier 2 alleles. In conclusion, PGx allele coverage varied by gene and array. A superior array for all PGx applications was not identified. Future comparative analyses of genotype data produced by these arrays are needed to determine the robustness of the reported coverage estimates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".