ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Characterizing features affecting local ancestry inference performance in admixed populations.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, significant efforts have been made to improve methods for genomic studies of admixed populations using Local Ancestry Inference (LAI). Accurate LAI is crucial to ensure downstream analyses reflect the genetic ancestry of research participants accurately. Here, we test analytic strategies for LAI to provide guidelines for optimal accuracy, focusing on admixed populations reflective of Latin America's primary continental ancestries - African (AFR), Amerindigenous (AMR), and European (EUR). Simulating LD-informed admixed haplotypes under a variety of 2 and 3-way admixture models, we implemented a standard LAI pipeline, testing three reference panel compositions to quantify their overall and ancestry-specific accuracy. We examined LAI miscall frequencies and true positive rates (TPR) across simulation models and continental ancestries. AMR tracts have notably reduced LAI accuracy as compared to EUR and AFR tracts in all comparisons, with TPR means for AMR ranging from 88-94%, EUR from 96-99% and AFR 98-99%. When LAI miscalls occurred, they most frequently erroneously called European ancestry in true Amerindigenous sites. Using a reference panel well-matched to the target population, even with a lower sample size, LAI produced true-positive estimates that were not statistically different from a high sample size but mismatched reference, while being more computationally efficient. While directly responsive to admixed Latin American cohort compositions, these trends are broadly useful for informing best practices for LAI across other admixed populations. Our findings reinforce the need for inclusion of more underrepresented populations in sequencing efforts to improve reference panels.
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.