ArticleGenetic epidemiology2014
Value of Mendelian laws of segregation in families: data quality control, imputation, and beyond.
Article in Genetic epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pipeline for Phasing and Genotype Imputation on Mixed Human Data (Parents-Offspring Trios and Unrelated Subjects) by Reviewing Current Methods and Software.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Mendelian Inconsistent Signatures from 1314 Ancestrally Diverse Family Trios Distinguish Biological Variation from Sequencing Error.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2019Article
- Rapid Detection of Rare Deleterious Variants by Next Generation Sequencing with Optional Microarray SNP Genotype Data.Human mutation · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When analyzing family data, we dream of perfectly informative data, even whole-genome sequences (WGSs) for all family members. Reality intervenes, and we find that next-generation sequencing (NGS) data have errors and are often too expensive or impossible to collect on everyone. The Genetic Analysis Workshop 18 working groups on quality control and dropping WGSs through families using a genome-wide association framework focused on finding, correcting, and using errors within the available sequence and family data, developing methods to infer and analyze missing sequence data among relatives, and testing for linkage and association with simulated blood pressure. We found that single-nucleotide polymorphisms, NGS data, and imputed data are generally concordant but that errors are particularly likely at rare variants, for homozygous genotypes, within regions with repeated sequences or structural variants, and within sequence data imputed from unrelated individuals. Admixture complicated identification of cryptic relatedness, but information from Mendelian transmission improved error detection and provided an estimate of the de novo mutation rate. Computationally, fast rule-based imputation was accurate but could not cover as many loci or subjects as more computationally demanding probability-based methods. Incorporating population-level data into pedigree-based imputation methods improved results. Observed data outperformed imputed data in association testing, but imputed data were also useful. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing methods and suggest possible future directions, such as improving communication between data collectors and data analysts, establishing thresholds for and improving imputation quality, and incorporating error into imputation and analytical models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.