ArticleAlgorithms for molecular biology : AMB2023
The solution surface of the Li-Stephens haplotype copying model.
Article in Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Genealogy-based trait association with LOCATER boosts power at loci with allelic heterogeneity.Genome research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Li-Stephens (LS) haplotype copying model forms the basis of a number of important statistical inference procedures in genetics. LS is a probabilistic generative model which supposes that a sampled chromosome is an imperfect mosaic of other chromosomes found in a population. In the frequentist setting which is the focus of this paper, the output of LS is a "copying path" through chromosome space. The behavior of LS depends crucially on two user-specified parameters, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], which are respectively interpreted as the rates of mutation and recombination. However, because LS is not based on a realistic model of ancestry, the precise connection between these parameters and the biological phenomena they represent is unclear. Here, we offer an alternative perspective, which considers [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] as tuning parameters, and seeks to understand their impact on the LS output. We derive an algorithm which, for a given dataset, efficiently partitions the [Formula: see text] plane into regions where the output of the algorithm is constant, thereby enumerating all possible solutions to the LS model in one go. We extend this approach to the "diploid LS" model commonly used for phasing. We demonstrate the usefulness of our method by studying the effects of changing [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] when using LS for common bioinformatic tasks. Our findings indicate that using the conventional (i.e., population-scaled) values for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] produces near optimal results for imputation, but may systematically inflate switch error in the case of phasing diploid genotypes.
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.