ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2017
Prediction of biogeographical ancestry from genotype: a comparison of classifiers.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Physical Appearance from Low Template: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Genes · 2026Review
- Responding to the call: Population affinity estimation in a South African forensic context of identification - are we helping or harming?Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Efficiency of Ancestral Inference and Characterization of Genetic Structure of Chinese Kazakh Group with a Novel InDel Panel.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Forensic DNA phenotyping: a review on SNP panels, genotyping techniques, and prediction models.Forensic sciences research · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Development and Evaluation of the Ancestry Informative Marker Panel of the VISAGE Basic Tool.Genes · 2021Article
- Article
- Ancestry informative markers (AIMs) for Korean and other East Asian and South East Asian populations.International journal of legal medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA can provide forensic intelligence regarding a donor's biogeographical ancestry (BGA) and other externally visible characteristics (EVCs). A number of algorithms have been proposed to assign individual human genotypes to a BGA using ancestry informative marker (AIM) panels. This study compares the BGA assignment accuracy of the population clustering program STRUCTURE and three generic classification approaches including a Bayesian algorithm, genetic distance, and multinomial logistic regression (MLR). A selection of 142 ancestry informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were chosen from existing marker panels (SNPforID 34-plex, Eurasiaplex, Seldin, and Kidd's AIM panels) to assess BGA classification at the continental level for Africans, Europeans, East Asians, and Amerindians. A training set of 1093 individuals with self-declared BGA from the 1000 Genomes phase 1 database was used by each classifier to predict BGA in a test set of 516 individuals from the HGDP-CEPH (Stanford) cell line panel. Tests were repeated with 0, 10, 50, 70, and 90% of the genotypes missing. Comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) showed high accuracy in STRUCTURE and the generic Bayesian approach. The latter algorithm offers a computationally simpler alternative to STRUCTURE with little loss in accuracy and is suitable for phenotype prediction while STRUCTURE is not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27995319What 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.