Impact of Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium on post-imputation quality control.

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.

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.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Iam hiQ-a novel pair of accuracy indices for imputed genotypes.BMC bioinformatics · 2022
   Article
2. Calculating Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) in UK Biobank: A Practical Guide for Epidemiologists.Frontiers in genetics · 2022
   Article
3. Validation of genotype imputation in Southeast Asian populations and the effect of single nucleotide polymorphism annotation on imputation outcome.BMC medical genetics · 2018
   Article
4. A POWERFUL METHOD FOR INCLUDING GENOTYPE UNCERTAINTY IN TESTS OF HARDY-WEINBERG EQUILIBRIUM.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2017
   Article
5. When Does Choice of Accuracy Measure Alter Imputation Accuracy Assessments?PloS one · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as