ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021
Assessment of Imputation Quality: Comparison of Phasing and Imputation Algorithms in Real Data.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Combined family-based association and linkage analyses in families affected by attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.Human genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Accurate imputation of inversions in human genomes using different algorithms and data sources.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- GS-Impute: A neural network framework for accurate imputation of low-density markers in across-population genomic selection.Plant communications · 2026Article
- A Benchmark of Modern Statistical Phasing Methods.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Boosting the Power of Rare Variant Association Studies by Imputation Using Large-scale Sequencing Population.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Identifying individuals with rare disease variants by inferring shared ancestral haplotypes from SNP array data.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Aggregating single nucleotide polymorphisms improves filtering for false-positive associations postimputation.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- The DLEU2-miR-15a-16-1 Cluster Is a Determinant of Bone Microarchitecture and Strength in Postmenopausal Women and Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Heterogeneity analysis provides evidence for a genetically homogeneous subtype of bipolar-disorder.ArXiv · 2024Article
- A genotype imputation reference panel specific for native Southeast Asian populations.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Drug-target Mendelian randomization analysis supports lowering plasma ANGPTL3, ANGPTL4, and APOC3 levels as strategies for reducing cardiovascular disease risk.European heart journal open · 2024Article
- The predictive capacity of polygenic risk scores for disease risk is only moderately influenced by imputation panels tailored to the target population.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Performance and accuracy evaluation of reference panels for genotype imputation in sub-Saharan African populations.Cell genomics · 2023Article
- An autoencoder-based deep learning method for genotype imputation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
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
Despite the widespread use of genotype imputation tools and the availability of different approaches, late developments of currently used programs have not been compared comprehensively. We therefore assessed the performance of 35 combinations of phasing and imputation programs, including versions of SHAPEIT, Eagle, Beagle, minimac, PBWT, and IMPUTE, for genetic imputation of completely missing SNPs with a HRC reference panel regarding quality and speed. We used a data set comprising 1,149 fully sequenced individuals from the German population, subsetting the SNPs to approximate the Illumina Infinium-Omni5 array. Five hundred fifty-three thousand two hundred and thirty-four SNPs across two selected chromosomes were utilized for comparison between imputed and sequenced genotypes. We found that all tested programs with the exception of PBWT impute genotypes with very high accuracy (mean error rate < 0.005). PBTW hardly ever imputes the less frequent allele correctly (mean concordance for genotypes including the minor allele <0.0002). For all programs, imputation accuracy drops for rare alleles with a frequency <0.05. Even though overall concordance is high, concordance drops with genotype probability, indicating that low genotype probabilities are rare. The mean concordance of SNPs with a genotype probability <95% drops below 0.9, at which point disregarding imputed genotypes might prove favorable. For fast and accurate imputation, a combination of Eagle2.4.1 using a reference panel for phasing and Beagle5.1 for imputation performs best. Replacing Beagle5.1 with minimac3, minimac4, Beagle4.1, or IMPUTE4 results in a small gain in accuracy at a high cost of speed.
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.