ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Imputation Accuracy Across Global Human Populations.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Genotype imputation is now fundamental for genome-wide association studies but lacks fairness due to the underrepresentation of populations with non-European ancestries. The state-of-the-art imputation reference panel released by the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) initiative contains a substantial number of admixed African-ancestry and Hispanic/Latino samples to impute these populations with nearly the same accuracy as European-ancestry cohorts. However, imputation for populations primarily residing outside of North America may still fall short in performance due to persisting underrepresentation. To illustrate this point, we curated genome-wide array data from 23 publications published between 2008 to 2021. In total, we imputed over 43k individuals across 123 populations around the world. We identified a number of populations where imputation accuracy paled in comparison to that of European-ancestry populations. For instance, the mean imputation r-squared (Rsq) for 1-5% alleles in Saudi Arabians (N=1061), Vietnamese (N=1264), Thai (N=2435), and Papua New Guineans (N=776) were 0.79, 0.78, 0.76, and 0.62, respectively. In contrast, the mean Rsq ranged from 0.90 to 0.93 for comparable European populations matched in sample size and SNP content. Outside of Africa and Latin America, Rsq appeared to decrease as genetic distances to European reference increased, as predicted. Further analysis using sequencing data as ground truth suggested that imputation software may over-estimate imputation accuracy for non-European populations than European populations, suggesting further disparity between populations. Using 1496 whole genome sequenced individuals from Taiwan Biobank as a reference, we also assessed a strategy to improve imputation for non-European populations with meta-imputation, which can combine results from TOPMed with smaller population-specific reference panels. We found that meta-imputation in this design did not improve Rsq genome-wide. Taken together, our analysis suggests that with the current size of alternative reference panels, meta-imputation alone cannot improve imputation efficacy for underrepresented cohorts and we must ultimately strive to increase diversity and size to promote equity within genetics research.
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.