Accurate cross-platform GWAS analysis via two-stage imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In genome-wide association studies (GWAS), combining independent case-control cohorts has been successful in increasing power for meta and joint analyses. This success sparked interest in extending this strategy to GWAS of rare and common diseases using existing cases and external controls. However, heterogeneous genotyping data can cause spurious results. To harmonize data, we propose a new method, two-stage imputation (TSIM), where cohorts are imputed separately, merged on intersecting high-quality variants, and imputed again. We show that TSIM controls imputation-derived errors and type I error. Merging arthritis cases and UK Biobank controls using TSIM, we replicated known associations without introducing false positives. Furthermore, GWAS using TSIM performed comparably to the meta-analysis of nephrotic syndrome cohorts genotyped on five different platforms, demonstrating TSIM’s ability to harmonize heterogeneous genotyping data. With the plethora of publicly available genotypes, TSIM provides a GWAS framework that harmonizes heterogeneous data, enabling analysis of small and case-only cohorts.
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 | 0.030 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".