ArticleGenetics2023
A rarefaction approach for measuring population differences in rare and common variation.
Article in Genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population Genetic Structure and Regional Divergence of the Endangered Freshwater Fish Black ShinnerBiology · 2026Article
- Targeting the astrocyte-microglia EFEMP1-GALNT10 axis: a spatially programmable therapeutic strategy for hippocampal vulnerability in Alzheimer's disease.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Seasonal variation of butterflies from high altitude Rugezi marshland, Northern Rwanda.BMC zoology · 2026Article
- Impact of population size on population genetic analysis of Short Tandem Repeat (STR) allelic data, forensic and paternity parameters and its effect on forensic DNA analysis.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- Dynamic clustering of genomics cohorts beyond race, ethnicity-and ancestry.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In studying allele-frequency variation across populations, it is often convenient to classify an allelic type as "rare," with nonzero frequency less than or equal to a specified threshold, "common," with a frequency above the threshold, or entirely unobserved in a population. When sample sizes differ across populations, however, especially if the threshold separating "rare" and "common" corresponds to a small number of observed copies of an allelic type, discreteness effects can lead a sample from one population to possess substantially more rare allelic types than a sample from another population, even if the two populations have extremely similar underlying allele-frequency distributions across loci. We introduce a rarefaction-based sample-size correction for use in comparing rare and common variation across multiple populations whose sample sizes potentially differ. We use our approach to examine rare and common variation in worldwide human populations, finding that the sample-size correction introduces subtle differences relative to analyses that use the full available sample sizes. We introduce several ways in which the rarefaction approach can be applied: we explore the dependence of allele classifications on subsample sizes, we permit more than two classes of allelic types of nonzero frequency, and we analyze rare and common variation in sliding windows along the genome. The results can assist in clarifying similarities and differences in allele-frequency patterns across populations.
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.