Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18850115›Full record

ReviewHuman genetics2008

Missing data imputation and haplotype phase inference for genome-wide association studies.

Sharon R Browning

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human genetics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Imputing Phenotypes for Genome-wide Association Studies.American journal of human genetics · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sharon R BrowningDepartment of Statistics, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. s.browning@auckland.ac.nz

Funding

Theoretical Population Genetics SupplementR01GM075091 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WEIR, BRUCE S. · 2006 to 2020
$4.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS 3R01GM07509-02S1NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM075091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imputation of missing data and the use of haplotype-based association tests can improve the power of genome-wide association studies (GWAS). In this article, I review methods for haplotype inference and missing data imputation, and discuss their application to GWAS. I discuss common features of the best algorithms for haplotype phase inference and missing data imputation in large-scale data sets, as well as some important differences between classes of methods, and highlight the methods that provide the highest accuracy and fastest computational performance.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiometryDatabases, GeneticData Interpretation, StatisticalGenetic MarkersGenetics, MedicalGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeHaplotypesHumansMarkov ChainsModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPolymorphism, Single NucleotideGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID18850115
PMCPMC2731769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.